It’s likely the Sherman was a main source of inspiration, just look at its size, chassis and frame size, and overall mission is the same: fast and light, hit em quick.
Looks like the just revamped the old stock. That same front end. Unfortunately, don’t have to be a tank commander to see the ease of a mobility kill on these.
@@dreb222 A WW2 medium tank is not the same as an IFV. Their mission is not at all the same. One is a tank, designed to fight everything from enemy tanks to bunkers, etc. Tanks were made mainly to push forward, break through enemy lines. Infantry fighting vehicles, on the other hand, were made to carry infantry into combat (while keeping the men protected with some armor) and also to serve as fire support to the infantry that they carried. This isn't so clearly stated in the video. The IFV is certainly not made to hunt tanks. It is, of course, made with the capability to engage enemy tanks, but that is not the primary mission. The mission is to support the infantry, the missiles are there for versatility, so that it can engage tanks if necessary. If that was its primary mission it would have been called a tank destroyer. The connection between WW2 tanks and IFV's that I can notice is versatility and the fact that tanks did indeed sometimes work as infantry support, but that was not necessarily the main role, and some countries even had specific tanks to fill the support role. For example, the British Churchill tank, which was considered an "infantry tank", while the M4 Sherman is a medium tank. To be fair, the Americans didn't have "infantry tanks", but still the Sherman was not designed to be specifically an infantry support vehicle, and it certainly was not a transport for the infantry.
After turning in my M3 CFV I received a new M2A1 for Desert Storm. Since we were a Cav unit (2nd ACR) we griped that it didn't have the ammo storage like the M3 so we ripped the back crew seats and lined the floor with 25mm and TOW's along with all our other "fun" things. It did great at the battle of the 73-Easting and could actually jump small wadi's.
As part of the initial fielding team at Benning I would like to inject, it's roll was to take fire teams into combat to support M1's. You must consider the supposed enemy would have been the Russians with their massive amount of tanks the presumed landscape was Europe. The vehicle needed to be capable of self defense and that means killing tanks while full filling the roll of keeping some dismounted infantry available for ground defense in 'run and gun' situations. It could keep up with the M1 ensuring ground (infantry) support for armored columns.
In modern times these pieces of junk wouldnt be able to go toe to toe with a modern battle tank. I was an 11B who got thrown into a Bradley for a couple years. The damn thing is just a rolling tracked mistake full of malfunctions and errors. A large majority of our battalions funds went into maintaining the bradley leaving us no money to conduct practical application training. This was during the years Obama was in office so that probably had a lot to do with our units poor funding. I hated the Bradley.
@@skyjockbill giving my personal opinion and the opinion of a majority of the bradley crews i served with. The reason they wouldnt be able to go head to head with any modern tank is due to the advances in modern tank munitions and composite/active armor systems. The bradley is greatly out ranged and out gunned when it comes to the next generation tanks being manufactured. Pit a bradley against a T-14 Armata, a Challenger, Leopard, Abrams, Merkava, etc... the bradley wont stand a chance. It was designed as an infantry support vehicle with some anti-tank capabilities for emergency defense against heavy armor. Its not designed to go up against main battle tanks or replace tanks in a "light tank" role. The military commonly misallocates equipment/assets in roles theyre not meant to be used for. This irresponsible actions taken by some genius Army officer doesnt prove that the bradley is effectively designated as a "tank destroyer" or "light tank" as ive heard people refer to it as. It just proves a percentage of Army officers are tactically stupid.
@@philjimito7250 it wasnt meant to go against any of the tanks you mentioned as far as the t 14 armata i dont see russia sending any of the 21 they have built to the front annytime soon.
I loved my multiple versions of the Bradley ending up with the M6 Linebacker. It's a very capable vehicle and fire system. Add in the BCIS components along with BCIS for other ground units and you have a very lethal force. The Bradley is not meant to go toe to toe with heavy armor. The brad kills tanks at maximum range of the Tow launcher which is usually out of range for eastern bloc mbts. The modified launcher firing javelins increases it's lethality. The M919 rounds can and have penetrated some older style armor but I wouldn't trust it to a T90 or even a new T80. But it remains a capable infantry vehicle.
Thing is though, Soviet/Russian tanks have capability to fire ATGM's from their barrels, which means they can indeed reach out much further than western MBT's (except for some Israeli Merkava tanks, which also have that capability as far as I know). Now, whether they are all equipped with missiles is another question, but they certainly have been developed with this capability in mind as far back as the 1980s (maybe even 1970s, although I think it was the 1980s).
@@MaxCroat No. Although the missiles may have extended range, their thermals and sighting systems suck. They are far outclassed by western fire control systems. Our thermals, laser range finders and target handoff capabilities to aircraft and artillery outclasses eastern bloc equipment in every manner.
@@williampayton9515 Clearly you are assuming what I think. I never said that they were better than western tanks, just that firing ATGM's is one specific capability that they have. This was a response to your comment saying that the Bradley would engage them at ranges where they couldn't fire back, because they could indeed. At least in theory, in practice the opposing vehicles will probably never even see each other at long ranges (like 5km or more) because of terrain blocking their view. The terrain would need to be completely flat. As far as being outclassed by western tanks, most of them are, and the reason is very simple - lack of money. Russia still maintains a huge army, but their budget is on par with countries such as Germany, around 50-60 billion dollars (I'm talking in the recent years, not taking into account the invasion of Ukraine). However, Germany has a much smaller army, so that budget is enough to keep their army up to modern standards. German tanks may even be the best in the world, but they have like 300-400 of them or something like that. Russia had about 3000 in active service before the invasion, so they cut corners in the modernisation packages in order to be able to afford modernising so many tanks. Tanks such as T-90M or T-14 Armata are almost certainly as good as western tanks, but the Russians have very few of them because they simply cannot afford to equip their entire army with the most modern tanks.
@@MaxCroat Lmao stop overglorifying Russian equipment. All the specs they say u have to lower it lmao theres a reason why theyre getting owned in Ukraine
Thats how we know your a cav scout. Infantry kills tanks because killing is what we do!!!!!!! I'm kidding btw. Javs are great but I don't fuck with tanks.
Yeah, it performs "admirably", against farmers in flip flops, armed with 60 year old AKs, and against empty tanks in the desert. But against an enemy that shoots back, they have proved to be death traps. The aluminum alloy that composes the armor doesn´t like to be penned by shaped charges. It immediately starts smoldering, and releases a nefarious toxic gas, that renders the crew inoperable in seconds. Several videos exist of Bradleys hit by FPV drones armed with RPG7 warheads, and they start burning almost immediately, and no crew is seen exiting! Bradleys don´t like mines either. The blast goes through the flat bottom like a knife through jelly. The Bradley is just too tall and boxy, to even consider evading an ATGM. There is no other vehicle in Ukraine that is that easy to score a hit to. Except maybe the MaxxPro, equally tall and boxy. Coming over the horizon, in the steppes of Ukraine, they are like the proverbial barn on wheels, and even the biggest drunk russian is incapable of missing something that towers above the terrain like a skyscraper. Doesn´t seem all that "formidable", does it? Heck, most of those supplied to Ukraine are already gone, and they were taken out before firing a single shot, as the guns have a woefully low range.
Please add a link to these supposed videos of Bradly's instantly burning from a hit. No vehicle tracked or wheeled likes mines. I doubt you ever served in the military or on a Bradly. I have on both counts and your Opinion is patently wrong and uninformed. @@Biden_is_demented
I remember being the NCOIC of the BFV Nett team out of Benning conducting swim training/testing in Cow House Creek during the FT Carson training cycle.
Yeah, it basically is/was based on the M113. I'm no expert on the original development of this vehicle, but I'm thinking the Pentagon said something like, "We've got this M113 vehicle...how can we up-armor it and put an turreted auto cannon on it?" And hence the M2 Bradley was born.
The M2 version is the taxi but the M3 is loaded with max capacity of ammo and rockets and no room to spare for extra crew, got to use the first version of the Javelin on a BMP in ODS. With heavier combat weight of the newer versions of the M2, different tactics and training will follow along with maintenance schedule. Needs at least a 40mm cannon to effectively defeat BMPs and BTRs light vehicles without having to launch a TOW missiles to save for the MBTs. Land mines and IEDs will disable the M2's and reactive armor will help reduce the damage by flank from ATGMs and RPGs but not MBTs main guns. Overhead on the turrent its still vulnerable to ATGM's shaped charge. IFF is critical to prevent blue on blue incidents. I can't imagine more than 6 crew in the IFV, the M3 can barely fit 2 in the back. Great machine for the purpose it was designed for. The M3 pic in the oilfields burning in Iraq is my wingman taking a piss break. The Bradley Fighting vehicle was not designed for reconnaissance but to lead the main force with sufficient fire power and speed to get out of the way when the M1A1 MBTs at the time do its job.
What was ironic was the BFV & M88 was used in Waco, Tim McVeigh was a Bradley gunner for the 1st INF DIV ODS and watched the vehicle smash the building and used it as a siege and destroy the Davidians which set off his mission to bomb the FBI Muriel building.
quite a machine. NOT designed to go "toe to toe" with tanks........not what IFV's do..........delivery of the infantry is the task here, ,using all the firepower, protection and mobility the IFV offers.
Did I really hear the Waco Siege listed as one of the wars the Bradley was in? The seige that took place in Waco, Texas? I'm questioning the depth of research done for this video
I didn't hear him call it a war did you? He said waco seige, which is relevant because the Bradley was used. David Koresh had armor pentatrating ammunition and numerous automatic weapons not to mention dozens of men to fire them. The had to call in the army
Well, an infantry fighting vehicle that can take down a Russian T-90 Main Battle Tank, with only a Bushmaster Chain Gun raining down on it to destroy it, is impressive by any standard. Seeing that Bradley smoke that Russian T-90 and causing the turret to continuously spin and ram into a tree, is a beautiful sight to behold! The Bradley IS BATTLE HARDENED AND HAS PROVEN IT'S WORTH in battle. The Bradley is a gem 💎 in battle scenerios! Anyway, thanks for the video 📸.
El Bradley es carísimo. Caro para comprar, caro para usar y caro para mantener. Por eso no fue exportado, salvo a Arabia Saudita que no tiene problemas de dinero.
Should give surplus older variants of Bradleys and Abrams to Eastern European NATO members and Taiwan. Help out friends so they can help themselves. Better than letting the equipment sit unused in storage.
We're seeing a lot of that now with Ukraine. But even so, the older ones that haven't been updated aren't massively better than the BMP's they will face. America will always keep a fairly robust strategic reserve until they build enough of whatever replaces the Bradley, because with enough upgrades platforms can last a long time, and upgrades are a lot quicker during wartime than building thousands of tanks and IFV's. When is the Abrams getting retired again?
Very good presentation. The Bradley is a legend in its class and its valuable service. its replacement requires much thought and innovation to meet the new and emerging threats, which does not necessarlily require large scale armored warfare.
@@incredible_facts may I ask for the song used in the begining of this video, I've been looking for this song for awhile but dont know the song, or the creator. Thank you, and great video by the way.
As a former combat vet with the 1st Cavalry division, the M2 Bradley’s are great armored troop carrier. But when I ran into a Stryker brigade unit from 2ID, those Stryker’s I like more & they can be equipped with a 30mm cannon, more powerful than the Bradley’s 25mm. If they can give the Stryker a little more armor for protection, you got yourself the deadliest 💀 armored troop carrier ever build.
This vehicle has reached the end of the road in regard to its development, and still cannot carry a full squad after all of it's upgrades. The US army needs a replacement with all of the latest technologies current for today. it definitely needs replacement will be in service with all of the upgrades until 2030 that's fifty years and even i won't look that good with all of the patch ups, it's time for a new AFV.
Or at least to go get groceries...maybe people will start paying more attention to the road than their phone, when there's a 25mm in their rear view mirror. If not, oh well!🤷♂️
...but have they figured out how to improve that part that assists the automatic lift to the power unit access panel that keeps breaking? I'm sure those dismounts are tired of lifting it manually...
1970's American design and manufacture was first rate. Around that time Americans designed and build so many formidable machines and technology's. Anyway, no one wants to start trouble when Bradley's are around! Just being near one you can tell they are deadly and tough as rocks.
we have 2800 Bradleys in storage now. They're planned to be retired soon. We also have 5000 Strykers, also planned to be replaced soon. We have 142 MGS Strykers with a 105mm autocannon, which have already been retired and will be scrapped. Ukraines army has 700,000 troops now, and we've sent them 150 Bradleys and Strykers? do the math. then write your reps. oh and we have 8000 M-113's which will never be used again. (this fine info came from Perun). Oh, and it doesn't weigh 36,000 Kg?
The newest upgrades to the BRADLEY are basically "Band Aids" until the Army chooses a modern IFV. It will probably have a 50 mm main chain gun and definitely the new 6.8 x 51 M250 machine gun form SIG/SAUER. Hopefully it will be a CV90 IFV.
6.8x51 is Dead in the Water as a 5.56/M4/M16 replacement. Definitely has a future with SOF bolt/semi Auto DMR’s absolutely. We’d be going back in time to the M-14; Basically going back to a 20rd Rifle that is uncontrollable on FA Fire. The M16 with a 20” Barrel, 30rd mags, (60rd drums) controllable, accurate and reliable. (Not a M4 fan. Carried an M16A4 on two deployments. The ACOG with the velocity of a 20” barrel and gas system is bliss. Plus you can carry 1,500rds or 500rds per man (In a Infantry Rifle role/Replacement, which the M5 yearned to do). The M4’s are giving the Corps fits. (Carbine length gas system and 1/3 less velocity) I’d expect a M16A5 with a chrome BCG, free float rail and a good fixed power optic. I could see the 6.8x51 as a replacement for the 7.62x51 in LMG’s however. Tremendous in that role.
DriveBy, My dear fellow, the Big Army has already adopted the 6,8 x 51 for its SIG M7 battle rifle and SIG M250 light machine gun. Noe the challenge is to get NATO to also adopt it.The 5.56 x 48 will still be around for at least a decade in various uses. THE REVOLUTION IS IN THE M157 VORTEX SIGHT SYSTEM. I mean, c'mon, an 80% hit probability at 700 meters by an "average infantryman" is daymn good and means a bit less ammo needing to be carried.@@DriveByShouting
I'm a old 11Bravo ,(1981-85). In 1984 my unit 1/7 Inf,3ID in Germany just received the first M-3 Bradley. I have mixed opinions of the vehicle. I believe we could off chosen a better IFV like the German Marder. 🇺🇸
As a current serving Brad mechanic the system is good but it doesn’t have enough space in it for troops and with the turret upgrades it’s got even less room
@@alibialexander I was a M-60 gunner, so I was part of the dismount team. I believe there was room for seven of us and three for the crew. A total of ten for a Infantry squad. 🇺🇸
@@josephgonzales4802 now good luck getting six in there comfortably the jump gunner seat is usually gone so you max is 6 dismounts in modern body armor and everything. Absolutely uncomfortable for them.
Was the aim not to carry a full dismounting squad into combat? I mean you can put a lot of rockets and guns on any armoured vehicle but what happened to a full squad dismoujnt?
Perhaps the only way to reduce weight is to use more kevlar panels in the design and less steel? When a new vehicle is produced the existing stock of bradleys will remain potent for another 30 to 50 years.
Stop throwing money at the Bradley. Time to replace the platform entirely. Either buy the CV90 mk 4 or the Lynx, but stop wasting money on this antiquated system.
the problem is the numbers needed to replace the entire fleet would cost an insane amount of money, the us military isnt some small force like germany, swedan, norway, ect, it is a massive beast, and we already have the massive amount of logistics in place already for the USs HBCT to support the damn things. you gotta think you're not just replacing the vehicle itself, you're replacing the entire support structure around it.
It should have side armor that uses a hydraulic to open the side armor to open and give the troops dismounting have a shield on both sides for small arms fire and when closed gives the Bradley's an extra layer of armor when closed and the vehicle is moving isn't that the whole reason of the Bradley keeping it crew and the soldiers inside a fighting chance and I think having a system to open the armor for the troops dismounting the vehicles and fighting next to the Bradley's weapons systems
The real question is if with the development of Smart Shoulder launched top attack munitions if the IFV is even possible? We have seen MBT’s especially Russia’s tabk force get absolutely annihilated by inexperienced and low trained Ukrainian conscripts. This will be an interesting time to see if the IFV will survive or pass into obscurity and another system be developed.
Russian armor fought in tight, urban areas and woods. The whole Kyiv offensive canalized the russian army. Combine that with a limited amount of infantry to esort, poor training, poor maintenance, and poor leadership and you get the results the russians got. Modern hard kill APS is already making the job of an infantry anti tank team more difficult. Fundamentally, it was not a failure of the tank as a concept but fhe failure of russian combined arms that caused the disaster in the North.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 That is not the argument I was making. I was making the argument that Smart munitions in untrained hands wrecked havoc on MBT’s which the IFV is not even close to. My argument is in a battle space where MBT’s find themselves vulnerable what will become of the IFV? This video mentions reactive armor panels but on the side not on top. Which smart munitions attack from the top. That was my argument. The lack of combined arms maneuver is another issue but a good one to bring up and certainly is a contributing factor.
Has the war in Ukrainian changed the way the US will use tanks in future conflicts with a conventional army. With the way they are using drones an javlins
@@c4blew If it was used as designed it could still be used today! German roller skaters think it can do anything and get themselves killed in one. It is a support vehicle not a front line combat vehicle. When used in it's proper role, the M113 excels. Ambulance, Mortar carrier, Anti tank and Anti air launcher, Command vehicle the list of jobs it does goes on and on. DO NOT put a turret on it and expect it to go toe to toe with a T-72, only roller skaters would do that. Designed in 1953 and still on battle fields today speaks volumes.
The tracks in that thumbnail pic don't even have there outter pads on them! Being the wrong type for a disarmament Bradley probably sold as old stock to private collector as completely stripped of all its ERA original tracks that would have went on an in service vehicle or kept as spares and these old thing's slapped on but if that's an upgrade god help the US! 😂
to me it looks like a bucket ofpoo not much good without any track protection .. a simple handheld wepon for ease of destrution among other ovies problems....................
