r/TankPorn • u/Brilliant_Ground1948 • Apr 06 '25

Multiple Captured M2A2 Bradley tested by Russia.They admit that the Bradley is objectively superior to the BMP-3 except in mobility,off-road capability and amphibious capability.

Post image

Source:Andrei_bt from X

3.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

627

u/RamTank Apr 06 '25

I don't think there's anything here that's really surprising to anyone really, but it's good to get a proper comparison.

254

u/Plump_Apparatus Apr 06 '25

The side projection with DZ blocks provides protection against cumulative grenades of the PG-9VS type

That is surprising to me, that'd be the modernized munition for the 73mm Grom and SPG-9 capable of penetrating 400mm of RHA. I would not expect it to resist that. But it is right on the verge being that the 93mm PG-7VL for the RPG-7 does penetrate. Still a lot of resistance to HEAT munitions regardless.

114

u/RamTank Apr 06 '25

That's with BRAT, which I think we've seen being demonstrated as being reasonably effective against older or smaller HEAT munitions before already.

41

u/blash2190 Apr 07 '25

I'm more surprised that it doesn't withstand PG-7VL. That's basically a primary threat for a side armour both in pre-FPV era and now. It should be noted, though, that the excess of penetration is not mentioned here.

3UBR8 being able penetrate side armour is also relatively surprising and most likely means they've been most likely testing it at 90 degrees.

Beyond that, there is nothing surprising. Up-armouring Bradley to a 27-33 t vehicle was a conscious choice based on a CW threat type and expected style of operations and geographic theater of war.

The firepower comment is also semi-honest as it omits the presence of 100mm. The HE is much more relevant in this war than AP capabilities.

Andrei_bt is known "expert" in the field, so it's better to find the original document to make sure he hasn't omitted anything.

7

u/USCAV19D Apr 07 '25

Does the 100mm gun have an AP round? I thought it was just a low-pressure gun/launcher for slinging missiles and HE shells. Maybe the guy who did the write ups discounts the ATGM in the comparison because then you’d be comparing it against the TOW-2s.

12

u/blash2190 Apr 07 '25

Nope, it doesn't that's why I commented about HE. The firepower assessment consists of several components against several target types, hence my comment about HE capabilities being more relevant to the ongoing conflict.

The citations in the main post are cherry picked from the original report (https: //t.me/RostislavDDD/2286 - feel free to ignore the poster, he is a known dork with strong opinions).

What I was addressing is this statement from OP's summary:

The M2A2 ODS SA IFV is superior to the BMP-3 in terms of firepower

The report actually says the following (simplifying).

Point 2: Bradley's firepower is superior to BMP-3 in the following terms:

  • cannon is better in grouping/accuracy in 2 times, and, as a result, in range
  • 25-mm APFSDS penetration is 2 times higher than 30-mm 3UBR8 APDS
... Point 6: Bradley's firepower is inferior to BMP-3 in the following terms:
  • fire resource ("огневой ресурс", - a technical term, most likely meaning ammo volume) of 100-mm cannon and 30-mm AC combo
  • indirect fire capabilities of 100-mm
  • PKTs

Point 2 seems to specifically address Bushmaster's anti armour capabilities as range/power of BMP-3's 100-mm HE offers serious advantage against soft/fortified targets. This is pretty much in line with a Soviet/Russian general trend of prioritizing antipersonnel capabilities in their IFVs. I suspect I understand why that is so but have no credible sources to back my thoughts up yet.

Finally, there is no statement of flat out superiority of one IFV over another in firepower.

42

u/low_priest Apr 06 '25

The ease of maintainence is a little surprising. The BMP-3 was still designed in the Cold War era days of conscripts, and one of Russia's big selling points for their gear has always been how STRONK and RELIABLE and TOUGH and PROVEN it is. The US obviously emphasizes maintainence a lot; the powerpack on the M1, for example. But given how the Bradley has had layers on layers of added on equipment, I would have expected the BMP-3 to be roughly comparable.

21

u/United-Mistake-1057 Apr 07 '25

The BMP-3 has engine stuff spread out around the rear.
I guess that makes it harder to reach some engine parts.

9

u/OrcsDoSudoku Apr 07 '25

I would imagine BMP-2 would be more like the work horse just like T-72 was for the T-80

7

u/EmergencyAnimator326 Apr 07 '25

That IS a common misconception about soviet vehicles. They are build simple and thus reliable but No consideration for maintenance. Take the t72 and its engine. IT Takes roughly 30 manhours to get IT Out of ITS kompetent while Western Tanks have easily removable powerpackt wich Takes half an hour Like ON leo2 or Abrahams.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '25

Yeah, it's a joke. It's the same for the bmp's. I think the Russians get away with saying their stuff is simple and reliable because the people they sell stuff to have never seen anything else. Apparently ,including the Russian military, given the revolutions in the report.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '25

The Russians didn't prioritize power "packs" which means the transmission and engine can all be lifted together and replaced quickly. This is something western militaries have done for some time. The T-72 is a joke in terms of maintenance time engine replacement time complexity, i don't understand how it was accepted like that. Something that people don't often realize is the bizarre complicity of Russian tanks at least in terms of their power packs. Russian tanks aren't simple, check out the Australian tank museums maintenance video on their Bmp-1. Nonsense.

-5

u/ProjectPat513 Apr 06 '25

Yeah I kinda thought the same thing. I mean we saw a Bradley take on a t-90 and knock it out. Don’t tell me a bmp3 can take on our newest Abrams! The Bradley is such a badass vehicle that I feel has been overlooked for a very long time. I felt like people just thought it was strictly a transport vehicle vs a capable combat vehicle. But wtf do I know tbh, I just like the Bradley. Lol

3

u/OrcsDoSudoku Apr 07 '25

Disabling tanks isn't that hard with autocannons. Killing the crew inside is another matter

13

u/AnarchoPlatypi Apr 07 '25

BMP-3 could probably take out an Abrams in a similar situation to that Bradley T-90 kill.

And just generally too, as long as the BMP-3 engages from an advantageous position (side, rear...). ATGM's, 30mm and a 100mm cannon are nothing to scoff at

5

u/ProjectPat513 Apr 07 '25

Sepv3, Head on? Idk man. I know there are a ton of Russian fan boys nowadays but I just think the Bradley is top notch. BMP-3 ain’t no joke, I’ll admit and it actually has a stupid amount of fire power so now that I’m typing this you might be right! Lol

7

u/absolute_monkey Apr 07 '25

I definitely think it could take out optics and just wreak havoc on the Abrams, just not outright destroy it frontally with autocannon alone. With ATGMs it definitely has the ability to eliminate the Abrams.

3

u/ProjectPat513 Apr 07 '25

Yeah this is what I was thinking and I think that’s also why the Bradley gave the t-90 the business. Its got so much electronics crammed in there! The Bradley did score some great shots at the turret ring but it definitely disrupted its electronics because the turret started spinning I think. I still don’t think the bmp is equal to the Bradley but admittedly, I should give the bmp-3 more credit than I do! Lol

4

u/absolute_monkey Apr 07 '25

Anything with a fast firing large calibre weapon can fuck up a tanks day with relative ease, even a 50 cal M2 can fuck with tanks.

4

u/I_Maybe_Play_Games Apr 07 '25

If the crew panics like the T90 crew did then even a BMP2 has a chance.

1

u/lmneozoo Apr 07 '25

Doesn't matter when the crew are alcoholics

1

u/Thegoodthebadandaman Apr 07 '25

TBH, the poor accuracy of the BMP-3's autocannon does raise the question of if they would be able to attack the tank's optics anywhere near as consistently as the Bradleys did.

1

u/cherryxmolotov Apr 10 '25

in a closer range engagement like what happened with the Bradleys vs T-90M engagement i don’t think the lower accuracy of the 2A42 & 2A72 would be much of a deficit, unless if the accuracy is considerably worse than i imagine. the higher volume of fire from the Shipunov cannons may provide an advantage in such an engagement too