Ukrainian Bradley vs Russian BMP

Go to ground.news/re... to get the latest news on Russia and Ukraine. Try it out or subscribe through my link before Sept 25, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access to avoid media bias.
Ever since the introduction of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle to the war in Ukraine, a lot of debate has sparked on the internet, about it’s effectiveness, especially when compared to the Soviet and Russian BMPs...
Patreon: / redeffect
Sources:
"M2/M3 Bradley At War" - M. Green & J.D. Brown
"Боевые машины пехоты БМП-1, БМП-2 и БМП-3" - Сергей Суворов
thesovietarmou...
thesovietarmou...
www.dieselrebu...

[@RedEffectChannel]

Go to ground.news/redeffect to get the latest news on Russia and Ukraine. Try it out or subscribe through my link before Sept 25, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access to avoid media bias.

[@jaycentoret2866]

have you seen lazerpigs vid:?

[@war8036]

How’s that Bradley mine protection panning out?

[@jaycentoret2866]

@@war8036 not very good haha but they upgraded it with didmounted infantry up frony

[@zixinxia194]

I thought its light weight is because it have to swim in water?

[@elusive6119]

Still worth clarifying: 11:42 bmp-2 hit in the roof of the tower above the breech of the 2A42 cannon, probably an 82mm mortar 11:45 this is NOT a BMP-3! this is a BMD-4, the side of which serves as protection only from 7.62. Pay attention to the welded faceted tower, this is a BMD. The old problem with the supply of spare parts and additional solutions, when only new cars are fully equipped.

[@25xxfrostxx]

The BMP vs Bradley showdown will probably come down to the one that shoots first. The autocannons on both will rip the other apart.

[@jorgefloyd6989]

Not,who shoot first. But the one who gets the first hit first. Just because you shoot first doesn't mean you get the first hit. Retired 11B 1996-2020.

[@diverr69]

i think the BMP would kill faster because it shoots 3 times faster with a bigger round than bradley

[@rafaelgoncalvesdias7459]

Guess the comparison should be more of wichs is more successful in it's role than in a 1x1 battle between both.

[@dobbylollol]

@@diverr69 The bradley got better sights and other electronics. You will most likely spot the BMP before it spots you, then it doesent matter if the bmp shoots faster

[@dobbylollol]

@@rafaelgoncalvesdias7459 It aint gonna shot a thing when its in water however probably, almost all battles takes place on open fields and forests aswell, then it doesent matter if it can go thrue water or not

[@treeweasel77]

As a former Bradley crewman I'd say this is one of the most thoughtful comparisons between the platforms I've seen. Thank you for your insight and diligence.

[@Eleolius]

Bradley has one major weakness... a crippling flaw. No AC.

[@cdgncgn]

are u joking ? Cherrypicking and ... these head on meetings dont happen mostly. Who takes on Bradleys are tanks, ATGM teams, helocopters, artillery ,mines.

[@Jartran72]

Yeah no AC is horror in afganistan type environments. Hope you guys never have to be in such a situation again.

[@linearswitchguy9593]

@@Eleolius As funny as it sounds its actually a huge issue. Especially in environments like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

[@winzyl9546]

Uhh no, this is... questionable at best. The diligence in research is... basic at best. No insight i've learned here.

[@InterstellarTaco]

Having been a Bradley crew guy for years and cross trained with BMP 2s/3s It comes down to the intended use but the Bradley is still overall a more well rounded vehicle. Defensively the bradley is top notch, the optics combined with the FCS and high silhouette make this the ideal choice. Having said that The BMP's are extremely nimble and a smaller target. If i was conducting offensive operations during the day specifically id take the BMPs. Anything defensive or in low visibility/night id take the Bradley all day.

[@mionikat]

gawd bless

[@GGGG-jn7ib]

A person having non combat experience for 1 year would do worse than a person who had experience for 1 month and 5 months of combat

[@josephahner3031]

Where'd you cross train with BMP-3s?

[@JohnSmith-gd6ej]

The main purpose of an infantry fighting vehicle is to deliver infantry to the battlefield and provide fire support for an attack.

[@lodickasvlajeckou]

Great comment, but if we look at soviet doctrine we can see why BMP-3 were made the way they are, because USSR was for the whole time preparing for an attack over the great European plain in germany and they needed quick victories and knew there would be heavy losses

[@juturtleju5787]

I work on the Bradley for a living and everything stated on the Bradley is spot on but something i would have to add is maintenance. The Bradley turret subsystems are known to be fucky (certain subsystems) and replacement parts arent kept on hand. Not counting times the wrong part was ordered but most of the times your replacing SDB or TDB not to mention the gun and turret resolvers. The amour is undoubtedly better then the BMP but the PUAD for the engine is surprising thin. As well as the slanted armor plates on the turret, there is a gap between the armor plates and the turret hull with a hole for the 240C maintenance. (Edited note). The info I have said is not classified nor controlled classified information. Not even close to what war-thunder has came across. There are subsystems I can’t talk about. Only NSN wise and function of components but other then that it’s free game even if u just walk up to a Bradley. Also they have a data deletion switch which basically turns the Bradley into a multi million dollar paper weight if it were to be captured. Just saying for the misinformation of the reverse engineering that the Russians “could do” to the Bradley

[@jorgefloyd6989]

You forgot about the huge fuel tank that's located by the turret.

[@pilotmanpaul]

The BMP-2 is also stupidly cheap. Unlike the M2 Bradley that goes up to 2.1 Million, the BMP-2 only costs 300 thousand bucks and can be fixed by a monkey with a wrench. And in any war, attrition is what makes or breaks any forces.

[@MatoVuc]

@@pilotmanpaul true enough, but in a war, money maters only so much. a more important limiting factor will be resources for production, availability and logistic burden to get the asset to the front. The US has thousands of Bradleys in a desert in dry storage, but shipping them over to Ukraine is a different matter (after refurbishment, obviously).

[@MatoVuc]

From what I've heard, the State Depratment who in their infinite wisdom were the ones pushing for the Bradley to be sent to Ukraine didn't really think about also shipping a sufficient amount of spare parts for them as well. If true, that's hardly surprising, since they are all civilians and not even the brightest bunch of civilians at that.

[@u2beuser714]

​@@pilotmanpaul and how much does a bmp-3 cost?

[@daniellyhne6985]

I just want to point out that some of the pictures you present are not of BMP-3s, but BMD-4s, specifically, at 8:26 and 11:44. This can be seen, due to the hull and turret designs being slightly different to those of BMP-3s

[@osefman2763]

I also think that the ajustables suspensions are only present on the bmd 4

[@jPlanerv2]

arent bmd4s even lighter armored at the sides than bmp3 as they are intended as air drop vehicles?

[@osefman2763]

@@jPlanerv2 yes they are but they are also faster and smaller with more modern targeting systems

[@jPlanerv2]

@@osefman2763 i saw a lot of pictures of them shredded by arty shrapnel in first days of urk russia war, but thats a trade off of being airborne

[@robertkalinic335]

Bmp 3 and Bradley arent quite comparable, 100mm low velocity cannon and respectable ammo count make it its own artillery. They require very different approaches to use.

[@therealmp40]

Still both are used for the same role, I haven't seen any BMP-3s being used for indirect fire or as an SPG like the T-62s and 55s

[@kurczakpl1866]

@@therealmp40 look more then.

[@u2beuser714]

And what different approach does it require exactly? Could you please elaborate?

[@jugganaut33]

@@therealmp40I literally watched a video of a Ukrainian being slapped in a trench by indirect 100mm fire yesterday.

[@u2beuser714]

​@@jugganaut33 Where is that footage?

[@jorgefloyd6989]

Having served over 23 years as an 11B. Over half of my career was with the Bradley. It's a great IFV. However, with extra armor, the transmission isn't tough enough to handle the extra weight. The 25MM is not enough. The Tow missiles are top-notch. The sightings system is top-notch as well. However, it's not amphibious, extremely heavy, under gunned. And extremely huge target. US ARMY needs a new replacement.

[@mattandrews8528]

Yeah the “new” solution here is decades old yet still classified anti gravity “propellent less propulsion” tech. This white/black world nonsense needs to stop. I’m tired of tax dollars being wasted on IFV’s while OUR manmade 🛸‘s of all shapes n sizes zippin around while the military keeps telling us lies that they know nothing. What a joke.

[@LewisB3217]

Wtf is your username, you get dishonorably discharged?

[@dobbylollol]

Replace the bradley for the CV90 or Puma ;)

[@u2beuser714]

Bmp-3 with better protection and fcs would be able to go toe to toe aginst the bradleys bmp2 must be phased out

[@BlaBla-pf8mf]

@@LewisB3217 Don't do drugs

[@MatoVuc]

I've always really liked the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 and thought it to be a considerable improvement on the basic IFV/BMP concept and with the footage from Ukraine, I'd say i wasn't far off with that assessment. Always useful to have another vehicle that can double tank duties in urban combat, which is to say, HE-Frag direct fire on fortified enemy position. There's also that footage of an assault on a village by one tank and 2 BMP-3 and all three firing their cannons at the enemy positions (plus the 30mm by the bmps) was very impressive and imposing.

[@fpsserbia6570]

i would say that BMP 3 is basically 3 in 1, - you have huge 100m gun for attacking tranches and buildings, -you have 30mm cannon for infantry especially clearing forests, + ATGMs even if tanks are not available it wouldn't be a huge problem, BMP3 would be able to provide a good cover BUT a huge but is armor and electronics, with 100mm cannon i don't see a reason why BMP3 should be a lightly armored fighting vehicle it should have at least 30t

[@MatoVuc]

@@fpsserbia6570 because it needs to swim, as per russian doctrine of use for IFVs ... And not sink a meter into the mud when the rainy season hits

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@MatoVucI wish the Russian can place engine of bmp 3 in the front so as to allow easier infantry dismount in the rear.

[@MatoVuc]

@@blugaledoh2669 that would need a redesign of the entire hull, as the vehicle would be front heavy and would not be able to swim. But if you want something like that, the Chinese have their ZBD-97 and ZBD-04

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@MatoVuc didn’t the Russian design the BMP Manul

[@noobiplays8539]

As an Old M3A3 gunner and a BMP enthusiast, I really enjoyed this video. Thank you

[@aksaraylicelali]

Did you ever saw any service ? Would you like to share any memories with us ? (interesting, weird or funny preferably)

[@aletron4750]

@@aksaraylicelalithe ac never fucking works and they make us wear full MOP/CBRN gear during NTC in the desert

[@vladimir0101_]

Bradley has better protection, armour piercing rounds, electronics and optics, while BMP has a lighter weight and amphibious ability. But currently the way Ukrainians are using their Bradleys makes them no different from the Soviet BMPs.

[@pilotmanpaul]

Which is odd. Could it be just overall bad tactics? The Bradley is superior in almost all angles yet of all the NATO IFVs sent, it has the most losses(Almost 45% of all Bradleys sent is lost) next to the M113. (At 38% total lost)

[@alexdunphy3716]

Because of the terrain and the enemy they face the Ukrainian Bradley's can't be used like the US used them against Iraqis. If anything this war shows that armoring vehicles needs to be taken a lot more seriously

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@pilotmanpaul Better protection is still insufficient protection. What difference does it make.

[@belliduradespicio8009]

​@@pilotmanpaularmored vehicles are much more vulnerable when the enemy actually has anti-tank weapons and tactics... and morale... and an army...

[@nilasferm1239]

​@@pilotmanpaulits mostly specifically because the bradley is so much better than Ukraines Bmp-1/2 park that their disproportionately being used and lost in offensives. Then you could always point to the fact more bradleys are seemingly able to be repaired later on after being damaged unlike the Bmp to suggest the losses might not be as severe as they seem

[@stathispapadopoulos7926]

It is important to mention that when a vehicle is declared to be resistant to let's say 30 mm ap it usually means parts of it or the majority of it can bounce a 30mm ap hit. HOWEVER, the Bradley even with the armored package is full of spots and areas where the extra armor doesn't cover and even with the extra armor , ballistic simulations using ansys show it barely stops 30 mm ap there. This, together with the rate of fire of these autocannons means that in medium and short ranges, if a Bradley is spotted let's say by a bmp3 or 2 it will be fired upon and hit by probably 15 to 60 rounds within a span of 2 to 10 seconds. That means that before the crew can locate and return fire to whatever is shooting them it is likely that dozens of rounds will have already hit them and bouncing all of those if they are 30 mm ap is statistically impossible. Same applies to the bmp of course, I'm not roasting the Bradley. Bmp2 being able to stop 23mm ap is very optimistic as simulations also show it can get penetrated by it in many areas. In short what I want to say is that even if you bounce a round or 2, if you get hit by like 25 of them, some will find the spots that are penetrable or will degrade and dig through the armor. Being in a tank and bouncing a sabot gives you 5.5 to 9 seconds to react before the second one comes in. But in an ifv vs ifv engagement you will be torn apart by dozens of rounds within those 5 or 10 seconds. So the likelihood of an ifv not spotting the threat and having time to react to being shot at given by uts protection is very very unlikely.

[@TKUA11]

Doesn’t seem like we see a lot of bmp on Bradley fights. Bradley can call out artillery better and since this is an artillery war, the Bradley wins out

[@Danissimo321]

Moreover, even 30mm can easily destroy all sights(especially thermal) and we have one video of Bradley, which suffered fire from BMP-2. Armor wasn't penetrated, but all sensors, sights and etc were destroyed(this also work for BMP-3)

[@ramrod9556]

@@TKUA11 In this war, almost all artillery spotting is called out by drones. Only in extremely bad weather when the drones can't fly would spotter vehicles be needed and in that weather they would likely be parked by ground conditions. For much of the recon work where drones are unusable, it is now pick-up trucks or side-by-side ATVs.

[@MrZlocktar]

The big problem with all this, is that BMP just as Bradley or any military vehicle is a part of a grand scheme that is called military doctrine. Or operational tactics. Comparing them in itself is stupid idea. I'll give an example. Most people believe that M-777 outranges most Russia's artillery, so they supposedly can't effectively conduct counter artillery suppression fire. What people don't know however, is that Russians are not only using artillery for counter artillery fire, but also drones. They just sending the fucking Lancet which hunts these guns while they are on a move, sometimes even with ammunition trucks as bonus. Counter artillery - level "Savagery". That implies, that there is more to it, than you can see on KZbin. From what i am aware of, there are different types of BMP-2s and BMP-3s that are used on a frontline and it all depends on tasks. Those BMPs without additional armor, are actually transporting and evacuating soldiers from the yellow zone of frontline where being hit by artillery or anything is unlikely. Those with additional armor and thermal scopes are used to transport and evacuate soldiers from the red zone of frontline. They will use their mobility and very low profile to great effect by dropping infantry into trenches providing heavy suppressive fire and then they will drive back until there is more support or evacuation is needed. As for the topic itself, both IFVs are fine. But when it comes to this theater of war in practice - Bradley doesn't have a single sufficient advantage from it's characteristics because of how desperately Ukrainians are using them to breach frontline. So it's really put at disadvantage from a get go. That's why so many Bradley IFVs has been lost since, and that's why "Bradley Square" exist. To put it simple, Bradley never faced an enemy that has all the same capabilities of NATO and even more. When they fought in past, their opponents didn't even had sufficient intel on US forces whereabout to begin with. Not just satellites, but any intel. They were completely blind. And US conducted maneuver warfare because of this advantage. Maneuver warfare is impossible in real modern warfare and that's something we never actually knew. This is the first real war for Bradley.

[@Villke]

​@@TKUA11there is atleast 10 drones for every ifv on both sides. If you are using ifv to spot for arty you are doing it wrong.

[@devoidoverlord1836]

The Bradley also has the option to go without the TOW missles and instead use a support device that accurately pinpoints spots for artillery strikes giving them coordinates

[@belliduradespicio8009]

that's called a smartphone now

[@TKUA11]

Exactly. This is an artillery war, there isn’t Gona be any bmp on Bradley fights, and both vehicles are used to attack trenches so the fight is between handheld rockets and the vehicles

[@LewisB3217]

And the Bradley linebacker can use Stingers, might be helpful to send a few over

[@osefman2763]

​@@TKUA11so you want to remove the missiles from the Bradley to ad something that a cheap drone can do?

[@mrmakhno3030]

@@LewisB3217 Soviet practice using MANPAD on moving vehicles for decades already.

[@Vibakari]

I feel like people in the comments are focusing too much on the hard specs like the gun armor missile and profile when it’s a IFV. The main focus for IFV is to support and deploy infantry so other aspects like crew/passenger ergonomics and survivability should be much higher priorities than IFV vs IFV capabilities

[@-foxwint-3140]

Welcome to soviet/wehrmacht simps talks Always talking about t-34 and panzer but never mention how shit were being a crew in it were

[@Narcan885]

"The main focus for IFV is to support and deploy infantry" Wrong! You're thinking of APCs. IFV stand for Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It's meant primarily to hunt and kill soldiers. As such its mobility and firepower are more important than crew protection as it's not meant to go against armored vehicles to begin with.

[@Vibakari]

@@Narcan885 the difference between an apc and ifv is that an apc is supposed to deliver and evac infantry and protect them from small arms and indirect during transport, after it fucks off since its just a carrier and not meant to really stick in the fight;it’s just a taxi. An IFV on the other hand loiters and fights WITH the infantry and supports them. They do have the ability to “hunt” infantry but remember one of the greatest threats to an ifv or any armored vehicle is well equipped infantry so it doesn’t have complete dominance over infantry in a vacuum. The dominance comes with the fire superiority it can provide to its accompanying infantry. You need both elements to achieve this.

[@Crosshair84]

@@Narcan885 This conflict is probably the beginning of the end of the IFV concept. IFVs have to pick between mobility, protection, firepower, and troop carrying capability. However, we see that neither the Bradly nor the BMP has the protection or troop carrying capability to actually deliver and support infantry. The point is rapidly coming where things will likely move back to dedicated APC and dedicated light tank/fire support vehicle. The two types working together.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@-foxwint-3140Yup that’s why I believe in Sherman tank supremacy. Some of the most comfortable and (eventually) best survivable tanks on the Allied side.

[@noname-wo9yy]

Sounds like a classic russian problem with the bmp3, good design with less emphasis on survivability but suffers from lack funding for the electronics

[@linnymiddy]

The something i call "Human is replacable, tank is not." issue

[@nektarkir4220]

Well , at least it doesnt suffer from poor reverse speed .... 🙄🙄 yes i am looking at you T-72 and T-80 dont you hide from me ....

[@Random-nf7qb]

​@@nektarkir4220t-80 literally has the best reverse speed of all current russian tanks

[@nektarkir4220]

@@Random-nf7qb T-90M ? Also i think the Armata has that record ( not sure tho )

[@Random-nf7qb]

@@nektarkir4220 T 64, T 72 and T 90 have the 4km/h reverse. T 80 has 10+

[@andreasfjellborg1810]

Only real issue i would see with the Bradley is mobility, especially during winter time with snow and mud. There is a reason why both Norway and Sweden went with the CV90 instead of the Bradley after testing both during the winter months.

[@zeitgeistx5239]

Also because of economic offsets, just look at who it’s built by. US companies except for Boeing with Finnish Hornets generally won’t do offsets.

[@EnRandomSten]

​@@zeitgeistx5239though ironically enough they share parts. The cv90 uses the same roadwheels as the bradley (for whatever reason lol)

[@josephahner3031]

Bradley does have snow grousers that improve handling on snow and mud to some degree.

[@Channel-23s]

When you can fire from farther away with the tow and have better sights you’ll be able to to put fight the BMP especially with the most of them being 1-2 rn

[@Max_Da_G]

@@Channel-23s Depends on circumstances really. If Ukrainian war is a yardstick, you'll see that vehicle-on-vehicle combat isn't prominent at all.

[@Gusararr]

Odličan video kao i uvijek.

[@slavicemperor8279]

@@u2beuser714 Za Blajburg spremni

[@kite2036]

I'd also like to mention how either side uses their IFV's. The Russians are using them to great effect during trench assaults as they are designed: move infantry into position, suppress the trench for a short time, then leave. Ukranians use their Bradleys as breakthrough vehicles, or as sentries. These are constantly getting hit by mines, missiles, and FPV's, which is exactly why the Russians evacuate their BMP's once the infantry is in place. As a side note, the BMP-3 outranges the Bradley's TOW's. I doubt that the optics could identify a target at the listed range of 5500 meters (9M117M1-3), but that's still more that the TOW 2B Aero RF's 4500 meters, and the Ukranians don't even have those.

[@danielpetrucci8952]

The only time IFV'S can support infantry is when theg are escorted by tanks but primarily the Bradley's and BMP'S are supposed to be the Uber of the battlefield transporting the infantry to Assault enemy positions also according to American Doctrine of Armored warefare the M1A2 Abrams are supposed to work hand in hand with the Bradley's and because of the Bradley's superior fire control they can scout targets for the tanks or helicopters or Artillery the Ukrainian Army does not know how to utilize that because they dont have years of training to do so they are basically a Soviet Army using Soviet doctrine with a western spin on it

[@albertoamoruso7711]

Yes. It explains why Bradleys are suffering a (relatively) higher rate of attrition, they are kept in active combat much longer (lower quality/shorter training also plays a factor)

[@laughingseal2282]

Russians are getting their shit together. At this point NATO should call it quits.

[@fftt9360]

They tried that nato method but back off and switched to troop transport

[@loerenzpiep3399]

I've seen the bradleys also seen as infantry support. For evacuating the wounded and for quick response to an counter attack or flank. Russian IFV seem to give birth like a mama turtle and scoot out. Leaving the infantry to fend for themselfs. Different mindset.

[@giraffefactory2905]

BMP3 100mm main cannon can also be used for indirect fire. There are videos how BMP3 crew coordinates fire with visage from a drone for aim. Definitely an interesting option to have

[@wogelson]

I like how the BMP-3 has a cannon that can be used like tank guns. This allows them to operate on their own and they dont necessarily need fire support from tanks. Of course it's not a 120 or 125 mm gun but I certainly wouldn't like to be shot at by a BMP-3.

[@D_U_N_E]

Being fair here, would you like to be shot by a Bradley? If so, you got thicker skin than me.

[@cdgncgn]

it doesnt do almost anything evenvs lightly armored vehicles. Vs armor - 30 mm or 100 ATGM. No RPG round like 73 mm like in BMP-1.

[@luisodriozola79]

Well, I always thought that mobility is much more than the declared top speed, you`ll have to take into account fording, trench crossing, swim, weight (bridge crossing), secundary transportation into battlefield, all terrain capabilities in general. There are logistical considerations also. I'd guess BMP series would be quite better at all of those... then is doctrinary use to take into consideration. These comparatives are fun to watch but could be quite deceptive, in my opinion.

[@lggivimodernivl416]

Полностью с вами солидарен

[@andrewezjevikov]

BMP can swim, Bradley can’t

[@joseaca1010]

​@@andrewezjevikovthe BMP can BARELY swim, but its so unreliable at doing so that as far as i know, east germany forbade its use for crossing rivers Ive seen BMPs sink like a brick because the water almost reaches thw drivers hatch while swimming, if the water isnt completely still or the vehicle isnt fully sealed, it just cant swim

[@jade7631]

@@joseaca1010it definitely can swim well, though slow.

[@joseaca1010]

@@jade7631 like i said, it cannot swim in rough waters or if its not properly sealed, and it shows considering how much both sides have used pontoons

[@seductive_fishstick8961]

Awesome video, would love to see more of these type comparisons in the future

[@alexanderstenmark8838]

Red Effect, can we get a video on the CV90's performance and maybe a comparison between the CV90 and the BMP platforms used by the Russians? As for what CV90, naturally the one used is the Strf 90E, which is the successor version (upgraded) Strf 90C.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

That’s just overkill at that point. The CV90 would just rip through all BMP variants like a 1000 degree knife through butter.

[@itsuk1_1]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 does that include BMP-KSh based on object149 chassis? because no way any CV90 variants has the firepower to go through that include the CV90-120

[@einar8019]

@@itsuk1_1 the armata is never going to see combat so they dont matter

[@itsuk1_1]

@@einar8019 wishful thinking

[@einar8019]

@@itsuk1_1 no, its realistic thinking

[@rantanplan178]

Fair comparison overall, but imo you should have put a stronger emphasize on the superior electronics of Bradley. Especially what that actually means. It can't be overstated how much of an improvement a battle management system is. The BMPs are pretty lackluster in that department, as you mentioned. I could say more, but that's the most significant point I'd say.

[@thinhvcoin]

Ahh, the typical but I have more modern electronic.

[@rantanplan178]

​@@thinhvcoinYes, the appropriate comparison in fighter aircraft would be avionics and the new buzz-word "sensor fusion". Situational awareness, is one if not the most important factors on a battlefield. Knowing where blue and red forces are, is a milestone in information technology. Google a bit around, and find out what it actually means and you'll realize how much of an advantage this is. Actually, if you ever played a modern FPS shooter, you should already be aware. This little map showing you all your comrades and spotted enemy positions? Guess why game studios introduced this. To avoid people running around like chicken not knowing where to go, as they don't know where everyone is. That would be boring. Now, this also translates to battle management systems, just the motivation to have them is a different one. One quite more important. That's precisely why western military equipment can be so much more effective. Russia tries to compensate with sheer fire power (yes "terminator", I am looking at you). Having better electronics is comparable to the advantage of early German tank forces in WW2. Compared to most of their competition, they had crew and inter-tank communication right from the start. That gave them a significant advantage and helped them to gaining the upper hand against superior tank forces. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't "the" reason for their success, it wasn't even the most important one, but it was a significant enough difference.

[@sanityunknown6958]

@@thinhvcoin So discounting an incredibly potent part of a system is just fine then?

[@ИльяЗапольский-и5и]

@@rantanplan178 хорошую электронику не возможно компенсировать огневой мощью идиот! Ты я так понимаю в армии не служил?

[@rantanplan178]

@@ИльяЗапольский-и5и Maybe there is an error in translation or you misunderstood me. I never said firepower could compensate missing electronics. Quite the opposite. That's precisely why most modern western systems are superior to latest Russian developments.

[@bololollek9245]

It worked be interresting to hear about the value of the amphibian capability, and ground pressure considering the muddy seasons of eastern europe, and poor bridge infrastructure in Ukraine, especially since many bridges have been blown up. The BMPs have light armour specifically to retain amphibious performance

[@kite2036]

The ground pressure of the two vehicles are on paper, very similar, even though there's a 10 ton weight difference (BMP tracks are thin). This quickly goes south for the Bradley considering add-on armor and ERA they've equipped it with.

[@Vilamus]

I've seen elsewhere that due to poor maintenance, the BMP's amphibious capabilities are not being used. Which is unfortunate and fortunate for Ukraine.

[@uku4171]

@@VilamusEven with good maintenance it can only be used in very good weather on calm rivers

[@simon2493]

I think you didn't give enough criticism for the way dismount leaves BMP-3 it's way too inefficient and can be even dangerous if anyone will try to exit without ducking they are exposed to enemy fire, and even if they duck it takes as they have to watch for how they move. Bradley has straight up electric or hydraulic ramp as wide as the rear of the vehicle it's self.

[@kite2036]

If enemy fire is so dense that you can't leave without your head being blown off, the problem isn't the dismount method. And hydraulics fail, specifically Bradley doors, as was shown off in a video from the inside of a Bradley that was on fire.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@kite2036Bradley still has the roof access, not ideal if the Hydraulics fail but it won’t be a “T-34 driver” situation where the only exit is so goddamn awful that you end up burning to death because of it.

[@6XCcustom]

The CV 90 took a direct hit from a Russian MBT as well as a hit from an RPG 7 even after these hits the CV90 worked so the crew could drive away without a problem if the crew didn't panic now i don't blame the crew it must have been overwhelming so now the Russian has a fully functional CV90 with 2 holes in it

[@tetispinkman9135]

And what? Captured cv90 won't help them in any way. Lol Ukraine got to capture ka52 in the start of the war. So it's normal to loose vechiles

[@bacnguyen9304]

BMP-3 is the only IFV in this video which can perform indirect fire which is a massive plus that this war has shown. No matter how protected you are, once you are exposed and on the line of sight below 2000m, your vehicle immediately get slapped by return fire. The BMP-3 can shoot directly at 4000m and indirectly at 5000m which make them double as mobile mortars and gun lauch ATGM also has proven to be superior to APFSDS as range are just too imoprtant on open field.

[@YoRHaUnit2Babe]

lmao BMP-3 can Indirect fire what?

[@strellettes8511]

Unfortunately the bmp3 is Russian so none of that really means anything.

[@MRrealmadridRaul]

Bradley also has an ATGM, the TOW.

[@Spartan-jg4bf]

And the survivability??

[@pymathus2283]

Troops and light armour with its 100mm gun.@@YoRHaUnit2Babe

[@hummel6364]

In short I'll just say BRADLEY IS FINE! In long I'll just say the Bradley is a perfectly capable IFV for the purposes of modern warfare, even if this one doesn't have the newest bling. This also mostly applies to the ageing BMP-2. Edit: Crazy how they don't just uparmor the BMPs in the field. All you need is a welding torch, and a destroyed enemy (or friendly) vehicle. Sure welding and cutting that steel could somewhat mess with the integrity of it, but doubling the side protection would be worth it for me. In WWII some Americans used Panther plates to uparmor their Sherman tanks, creating a kind of "Jumbo at home". The suspension and engine suffered a little from that, but since the BMP (3 especially) already has been shown to have the capability to bear some extra weight I doubt it's gonna be that detrimental. I suppose command would not allow this to happen...

[@hummel6364]

@@mitchellcouchman6589 well the BMP-2 is made from steel so if they just use armor plates from other BMPs it doesn't matter. You can also weld dissimilar metals although that's harder. The simplest solution would be welding on brackets using the appropriate metals and utilizing some nuts and bolts to attach the armor plates, similar to armor skirts on the WWII Panzers. This would also ease replacement, maintenance, and transport. It would also create spacing which can be beneficial. All they need is some good old redneck engineering.

[@cdgncgn]

BMP-@@mitchellcouchman6589 BMP-3 but bmp1,2 is steel, less bulky.

[@kite2036]

This is a really good comment. It's very difficult for a piece of equipment to not meet the standard of 'good enough' that both the Bradley and BMP meets. Even the old version of the AK-12 was 'good enough'.

[@hummel6364]

@@kite2036 well I'd say the M113s didn't meet the "good enough" or "perfectly adequate" standards, they barely managed to reach the "better than nothing" standard. The fields of those things just destroyed everywhere were quite sobering to see.

[@nanzistnt2573]

BMP is a different mindset from the Bradley. Bradley: big heavily armored fighting vehicle capable of standing its ground. BMP: Small and fast hit and runner that can outmaneuver its enemy due to its decreased weight (armor) and amphibious ability.

[@СергейЕлькин-с8н]

The BMP floats. It was developed for Europe. With a lot of rivers and water obstacles. Therefore, her armor is thinner.

[@nietzscheankant6984]

A useless feature (they can only really 'technically' float, and no one uses that feature cuz it sucks [eg. in Ukraine, both sides always use pontoons]), that doomed its protective capabilities, making BMPs thin-shelled death traps.

[@AwesomeRepix]

They both beat having to walk around in a warzone with mines everywhere.

[@obioraobi]

nice video as always, but you also need to factor in cost of purchase and cost of operating as these as have both strategic and tactical impact.

[@nixles2577]

I think you forgot to indicate the main plus of any bmp. This vehicle is very good off-road and can overcome water obstacles without crossing. In simple terms, the BMP will move into position faster than its opponent (if they move there at the same time) and will provide infantry support in places where Bradleys and other non-amphibious infantry fighting vehicles cannot reach allied infantry positions

[@Jokubas124]

so much water in ukraine

[@seancopley499]

@@Jokubas124U highest density of rivers and streams of any nation outside of russia its self and southeast asia, the country of Ukraine is one massive river delta of the Volga why do you think i produces 50+% of the worlds wheat

[@nilasferm1239]

Yes and no, the Bmp is ampibious yes but that required all Rubber seals to be in place and in good condition, something that is difficult in the best of times and almost never the case in wartime. This is why you never actually see any bmp's swimming

[@LewisB3217]

They rarely ever use its amphibious capabilities in Ukraine, they mainly try and use pontoon bridges instead of fording

[@watchingvids9899]

@@nilasferm1239 see BMP-3 swimming kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGm9npqljq-JqJI

[@longnightsofsolace4010]

One interesting thing to note is that the Chinese BMP3 counterpart (ZBD04) does have conventional doors at the back unlike the BMP3. In some of the early war pictures, quite a few BMD troops were killed trying to exit their vehicles through the top. It's quite telling that both the T15 and Kurganets have conventional doors as well. One interesting thing is that both the US and Russia do agree on is that a large calibre autocanon seems to be the future (instead of a 100mm canon) as seen on the T15/XM30 MICV.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

rather than agree, this is more likely due to technological advances.

[@dadidadida123]

There is a saying, China is the biggest fan of US.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Yeah, basically all of the pluses of an Autocannon with more damage to enemy vehicles. I never liked the Idea of the 100mm on a BMP-3, mainly because I don’t think it’s really needed in an IFV. If it were an Infantry Support platform that is up armored… sure.

[@ishitrealbad3039]

probably because chinese are very small people in general.

[@bigolboomerbelly4348]

A Bradley without infantry is like a horse without a rider Gen Milhouse Cotton 1986.

[@Saldr09e]

This channel so far had been the least baised channel on the Internet. Keep it up thanks for all the information so far !

[@StevenOfWheel]

Very in-depth analysis. However, something that I feel is sometimes missing from your analyses, which might otherwise prove useful to put things into perspective, is the actual cost of the weapon platforms/systems/vehicles being discussed

[@vanxthenecron3059]

Labour and other production costs in Russia vs US are miles apart due to low rouble value, so costs wouldn't be very informative.

[@StevenOfWheel]

@@vanxthenecron3059 If your currency does not loose value due to inflation, then it does not really affect the cost of production of domestically-produced goods (i.e., if most of the good's production chain is domestic), regardless of your currency's value on the trading markets. This is mostly the ruble's case right now, and the Russian arms manufacturing industry mostly relies on domestic supply chains, except for some more critical components such as electronics. So no, the fact that the ruble has a non-inflation-related low value right now hardly affects the weapon platform costs. Then again, yes, labor is definitely cheaper in Russia than in the West regardless of the ruble's value, nothing new there. Either way, when I said about comparing weapon platform costs, I thought it went without saying that those can easily be adjusted by purchasing-power-parity, that is why we have such metrics, to enable meaningful comparisons of products from different countries, whether it's hamburgers or tanks, even though the markets for those goods are wildly different.

[@petem6755]

Vehicle height seems like a double edge sword; if you're lower and smaller, you're a harder target. But if you're taller, you can generally see better over berms and other cover that the vehicle might be partially hidden behind.

[@cdgncgn]

that a drone spots it ? R.E. didnt say much about top atrmor of Bradley.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@cdgncgnI’m sure the top armor of the Brad is better than the top armor of the BMP-3

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you. Good analysis and presentation.

[@NihilismERM]

The problem for increasing the armor of the BMP-3 is the requirement for buoyancy. In Russia, they are sure that the BMP should be amphibious. This does not allow for increased protection. During the whole war, it seems to me, there was not a single successful crossing of the river without bridges. But the generals adhere to the idea of amphibious infantry fighting vehicles, and this does not allow changing the protection to the desired level.

[@NihilismERM]

And I will complete it. The quality of the waterproofing is very low, and the machine picks up water quickly. It turns out that the BMP cannot swim normally, but the protection is poor because of this.

[@syahranal-amsi5913]

Doesn't change the fact BMP still better than Bradley 😂

[@NihilismERM]

@@syahranal-amsi5913 No, it doesn't change anything. But if they had abandoned the requirements imposed on the BMP as an amphibious vehicle and started installing reinforced armor, the BMP-3 would have become even more effective than it is now.

[@CountSpartula]

And yet Lazerpig's audience will still call this guy a vatnik. Insane.

[@armed_but_blind2768]

The bmps are the most squishy armoured vehicle on the battlefield. Theres a reason infantry ride on the top of them instead of in the 'safe' confines of the cabin.

[@romanromanowski4470]

Zapomniano wspomnieć o pływalności.

[@broda680]

I think you should have mentioned that the armor on the BMPs is so thin so that it can be airdropped and it also has amphibious capabilities and I think those are factors for lacking armour

[@ukuskota4106]

Airdropped can be only sheetty BMDs

[@uku4171]

The BMP cannot be airdropped. That's the BMD. The amphibious capabilities are also rather lacking.

[@RemGaffer]

Considering the cost, the amount of materials spent on production, and the industry's ability to produce these machines, it would be correct to compare 2-3 BMP with one Bradley ... and in today's situation, perhaps all four.)

[@dimitarkolev6042]

What about the bmp 4 thats been around for a while ? Im suprised he didnt go into the newer version

[@IosifStalinsendsyoutoGulag]

You didn't mention the reason why the BMPs are so much lighter, and it's because of their amphibious capabilities. That being said, it's true that it's something that seems like was a miscalculation made by Soviet engineers/military doctrine and strategy planners, because in this conflict it's very hard to find instances in which that would be a useful feature, while the protection drawbacks due to the weight limitation are obvious.

[@localshitdealer]

.50 cal protection wouldnt make it not amphibious though.

[@mrmakhno3030]

@@localshitdealer but Soviet also want to make it small , so it's impossible to fix that problem. Russia did try to fix with their Kurganets 25, which is basically M3 Bradley+ 3rd gen thermal + a toilet+ amphibious, but it seems like they abandoned that baby.

[@delfinenteddyson9865]

good point!

[@lodickasvlajeckou]

Soviet doctrine was just about huge armored head on attack on nato from GDR and to gain as much ground as fast as possible while expecting heavy losses so we can kinda see why they did that, but there is no doubt that more armor could have been placed on BMP-3s side

[@culchie]

Most importantly, the amphibious capability requires top notch maintenance, which proved to be lacking in many cases in the Russian Army. That adds to the argument of this design choice being an unnecessary burden, both in designing and operating stages of this vehicle life.

[@bobigorg1665]

I would also take into account the fact that the BMP-2/3, like the BMP-1, are able to cross small rivers and lakes by swimming

[@pjmetzen3483]

True but only the BMP-3 is reliably able to do this, with 1 & 2 rubber seal’s having issue staying in good condition.

[@paimonisfood4986]

Also the fact that they barely use that feature

[@lucemfert4693]

The BMPs are meant to float to cross rivers or lakes on their own. This might explain the light conception to keep the floatability

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Although Bradley is heavier it also has wider tracks so the mobility is probably better than the BMP-2 in practice but probably still not better than the BMP-3. Also you didn't mention ibe of the most important oart if a IFV, the dismount capacity. How many troops they can carry, how easy it is to get in and out of, and how much spare equipment they can bring along like specialist AT or MGs that sometimes are left inside the vehicle.

[@BigSmartArmed]

Watch a move called Pentagon Wars. Based on a true story of how Bradley was developed.

[@major_kukri2430]

​@BigSmartArmed you're joking, right?

[@BigSmartArmed]

@@major_kukri2430 Corruption and fraud is not finny. The fact that they tried to make Bradley amphibious and two of them sank, that is funny.

[@major_kukri2430]

@@BigSmartArmed ok. You know that movie isn't historically accurate, right?

[@BigSmartArmed]

@@major_kukri2430I know which book it was based on and who wrote the book specifically as a reflection of factual events. You go a head and keep arguing with yourself, I'm out.

[@hitsunakousaka9497]

Interesting. Oh and also a small, probably negligible note; i think the reason of the light armor or the BMP is cuz they wish to keep it amphibious. Added armor probably slow it down or probably sink it in water but im not entirely sure about that.

[@weekendjail1417]

Bruh, it's so hard to find info on PT-91 performance in Ukraine. If yyou are able to, you should totally do a vid on that.

[@DNG12900]

To be honest the Bradley's hostory is really weird. You hear that it was supposed to be an APC but when you look at it you have to wonder what happened to turn it into an IFV that it is today.

[@chaosXP3RT]

The Bradley was never meant to be an APC. I've only ever heard that claim from the movie Pentagon Wars and that movie is... the furthest thing from a documentary. The Bradley was designed from the beginning as a counter to the BMP-1. The Soviets invented the IFV and the US wanted one of their own.

[@stephenvz7852]

And the us developed a superior ifv bc only thing the US had close to it was the M113 which was just a Apc with a .50cal

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@stephenvz7852Ahh the One size fits all M113. You want to fight infantry? M113. You want to move infantry? M113 You want to love wounded? M113 You want to fire mortars and move quickly? M113 You want to move cargo… guess what… M113

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@chaosXP3RTso many people quoting fucking Pentagon Wars. It’s a comedy, made using the diary of the dumbass who wasted the designers time with tests that an IFV is not supposed to face.

[@KorbenDalasCZ]

M2A2 ODS comes out as better. But he does not use his abilities when he remains dead in a minefield, 52 M2A2 of the Ukrainian army are destroyed or damaged and these are only confirmed losses. They are destroyed by artillery, mines and ATGM. they didn't even get into the fighting with the BMP. there are several places called Bradley Cemetery.

[@blasty137]

It boils down to how they are used. In Iraq, where tank battles were still a thing, Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams did.

[@713Tankbuster]

52 M2A2? Source: Trust me Bro, Wagner told me

[@Vagab0nd12]

​@@713TankbusterThose numbers have not been updated for a while, oryx straight up does not record ukrainian losses anymore so that number might be well over 70

[@713Tankbuster]

@@Vagab0nd12 You're not intelligent

[@blasty137]

@@Vagab0nd12 Oryx is still updating Ukrainian losses, it's just that Ukrainians have become much more conservative with their usage of heavy equipment. After suffering heavy casualties in the early stage of the counteroffensive they abandoned attempting large-scale armored breakthroughs and switched to infantry assaults, which is why we're not seeing so many losses of UA tanks/IFVs lately.

[@5oa8in2wr]

Both IFV have little surviveability under heavy fire. But BPM is amphibious, more mobile, smaller, lighter and cheaper.

[@ExcitedFrogmouth-ji7no]

Bradley also has kevlar to stop splinters inside

[@4ik4irik43]

8:26, 11:47 - БМД-4М

[@preludeh22a57]

Тоже резануло глаз. Тут "иксперды" не очень высокого уровня- так, для любителей

[@thexumaker]

Solid video. I will say looking at most of the footage coming from the war the thing that really shows is survivability. Maybe it's the western training or small sample size as well but the few pieces of footage from bradley's hitting mines or getting hit by artillery is that most of the crew survive with minor injuries. I think there's a pretty famous clip where the bradley hits a mine and everyone gets out unscathed. Can't say the same for bmp footage coming from the russians or ukranians.

[@Tom_Cruise_Missile]

My guy, you make an excellent point. However, this is a redeffect comment section, and nobody here cares about little things like human life when compared to MUH GLURIUS RUSSIAN BEAR

[@Armoredcompany]

It might be total home team bias but I would 100% pick the Brad. The armor is going to be more effective against a wider array of threats, and most importantly the optics are going to be superior. It may very well be the larger target, but these days it really comes down to who see who first. Having the CITV and better imagers gives you the edge over the BMP in most scenarios I would think. Besides, we have evidence of Brads surviving mines and we know that the Bimpy can't claim the same by any real stretch of the imagination.

[@anotherstorm2061]

I know its probably been answered before but what is the song in the outro?

[@MuhammadAli-255]

Face away -svard

[@anotherstorm2061]

@@MuhammadAli-255 thank you

[@rahiemturner9504]

@@MuhammadAli-255Crappy songs

[@strambino1]

I really like your analysis in this video. The Bradley commander can load the TOW missile launcher from inside the vehicle. You actually don’t require any additional crew in the back of the Bradley. Having additional crew in the back of the Bradley is optimal but not entirely necessary.

[@porsche-sandoesnotundersta8184]

Yo I just saw a T72 vs a Leo 2 in combat. care to place your thoughts on this?

[@everythinggaming7938]

BMP is better especially because its cheaper to make, factory time is less, and it is easier/less complicated to repair

[@pilotmanpaul]

A single BMP-2 costs 300K. A M2 ODS Bradley costs 3 Million or more. One thing is for sure, when it comes to attrition. The BMP-2 won't lose.

[@Juel92]

I think the protection of the Bradley is why so few have been destroyed vs damaged compared to the BMPs. The BMPs all range from like 64% destroyed to 76% destroyed while the Bradley is at 51% according to Oryx.

[@lumberjackagies5158]

Bmps have also seen more intense combat from both sides including the early russian blunders when no one on the ground knew what they were doing and things were getting blown up left and right

[@OSTemli]

It means you are only watching CNN or maybe censorship had limited your view. You nato countries live in bubble internet, it's funny to me as Indian when you laugh at Chinese You and Chinese have same environment

[@Juel92]

@@OSTemli Lol yeah because having better artillery and mine protection in a war like this just wont do any difference in the losses. I'm totally a brainwashed western chauvinist for even thinking that.

[@Juel92]

@@lumberjackagies5158 Yeah that matters as well. Hard to know exactly what matters most. They have used the bradleys during some hard assaults also.

[@a.t6066]

​@@OSTemliand you Indians don't? Lmao. You have stuff like hindustan times....

[@Potatoshaneko]

In my limited opinion, the Bradley seems to be a better fit for most combat operations as it's capable to keeping the crew alive in an engagement. BMP's are often seen exploding into hundreds of pieces when they drive over a mine for example.

[@panic_2001]

Hi, I watched the video casually, but at the end I noticed that one thing was missing from your comparison: The Bradley has a superior “Fire Control System” - definitely a deadly advantage BUT how complex is this system? What are the “maintenance instructions” for this “Fire Control System”? I have to carry out various tests at a certain interval so that the system works. I need trained staff, special measuring devices, spare parts - the logistics are a nightmare!

[@tetispinkman9135]

Lol you know, assault riffle is too hard. You need to clean it. Barrel can only be made in a factory. Better use bows. Bows are superior. No maintenance. No wear. You can make ammo in battlefield

[@brendancrummey5723]

Hey Red could you do a video on the BMD family of vdv ifvs I'd be interested to hear what your breakdown of them

[@austinbunyard3284]

Bradleys are very much more survivable than those crappie bmps 1 2 or3

[@TurtleChad1]

I remember when people said the Bradleys would be game changers. Now they fertilize the ground in Zaporozhye.

[@myfacern7232]

I remember when people thought you were based l0l. Bad turtle.

[@u2beuser714]

​@@myfacern7232 In perun he mocks russia , here he comments these. Clearly a bot

[@adillakandi.r]

All NATO weapons are game changer they said

[@myfacern7232]

@@u2beuser714 Yeah I've noticed that l0l. He also goes back and forth on political commentators too.

[@CaptainMarioXD]

Most of 50 Bradley’s knocked out crews survived, the same can’t be said for the 2,000 plus burned out BMP crews. Whose really fertilizing the ground?

[@arthe0]

I like watching this head to head comparisons where no one talks about price of each unit. I mean if data in open sources is correct 1 Bradley costs as 2 x BMP-3 or 6 x BMP-2 and thats a big deal

[@beaumontgile5886]

Idk why slat armor wouldn't be prevalent on bmp. All u need to do is fine some flat steel and a welder an make it yourself in the field. Uvwould think bmp crewmen could use a welder and steel would be found everywhere on the field of battle

[@wogelson]

I reckon if more BMP-3s would be equipped with add on armor, they would be even more formidable and quite comfortable to the Bradley

[@hal_s8745]

Bradley is heavy, high profile and clumpsy. BMP has almost no armor, but is fast and short. You make the conclusion.

[@jammygamer8961]

Bradley only has one less horsepower per ton than the BMP 1 and 2. The one in Ukraine is quite a bit slower but thats because it has a lot more armor, on top of this the vehicle survivability is better. The BMP 3 and BMD 4 do have a clear mobility advantage but at the expense of protection and survivability. I'll take the Bradley Edit: further thinking about this I think the BMP 3 and 4 might have better fire power (however with how the turret is set up, how much this impacts the crews ergonomics is unclear to me) than the Bradley currently being used in Ukraine

[@Melkor54]

they have lost 1/3 of all the bradleys sent@@jammygamer8961

[@vaderksy4730]

​@@Melkor54and what? It's about the crew who survived. And even in really bad situations crew usually survive

[@sdrkrm]

BMP when hit is almost certainty a mass grave (BMP3 esp.). Bradley as we all saw can even survive tandems and tank shells and crew survives in 90% of vehicle loss cases.

[@saucy743]

@@jammygamer8961 Can't fire on the move. I'll take the BMPs.

[@thejackal5099]

The ability to fire and reload missiles completely buttoned up is neat, but it does place a limit on the diameter of the missile which is deeply correlated with its penetration potential.

[@robvelor]

With 100mm that doesn´t really matter, a 10 cm missile is more than enough to take out any tank.

[@Marthos01]

Your videos are fun to watch, thank you for making them. :)

[@cdgncgn]

but he lies are many and intended.

[@klown463]

The Bradley is the Char B1 and the BMP is a Panzer II

[@Trojanponey]

I think the Bradley is the superior IFV of the available options, I'm just not sure it's *right* IFV for the war in Ukraine. We're about to go into mud season and the Bradley's extra weight is about to become a VERY interesting variable moving forwards.

[@gdtacos7082]

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the Ukrainian BTR-4. As it was made quite famous early on in the war due to the videos from Azovstal, but hasn’t seen much appearances in the past few months.

[@Archer89201]

Because they have lost 41 of the 50-70 BTR-3 and 85 of 200 BTR-4 visually confirmed in nearly 2 years of war

[@joseaca1010]

Attrition

[@gdtacos7082]

@@Archer89201 I understand why not many videos of them are appearing. I'd just appreciate it if RedEffect made a video on the vehicle. Personally I quite like the BTR-4. Ukrainian, and NATO standard configurations of the vehicle. I'd like to see how it fairs up against the BMP-3, and maybe some western vehicles such as Puma, Bradley, Ajax, etc.

[@Archer89201]

@@gdtacos7082 BTR-3/4 is more comparable to Stryker, BTR-80/82 etc wheeled IFV/APC

[@gdtacos7082]

​@@Archer89201 Yes sorry, you are right. It's quite late at night and I'm not thinking the best 😅

[@irishkiwi477]

Could you do a CV-90 comparison?

[@victoriageneta3966]

6:09 - 6:10 Bradley casually shoots Parked Bradley Turret

[@Windhox_cz]

What? Is that UA Bradley group named after a chaos god? Man now I fully expect an Ultramarine company of Leopards.

[@casematecardinal]

Wait where does it say that?

[@КГБКолДжорджКостанца]

Oh goody, more western junk to test our new explosive rounds 🤣

[@josephboustany4852]

In this analogy if Ukraine on the side of chaos wouldn't Russia be representing the imperium? Btw I didn't catch it after which chaos god is said group named ?

[@spartanx9293]

Where does it say that I want to see

[@Gerojsk]

@@josephboustany4852 eg 16:34 bottom text says Khorne group

[@THEGREATAFFILIATOR]

It makes no difference. They still burn the same when hit.

[@Conquistador387]

One thing that might be the reason for less weight and less protection for the BMP is that it is amphibious with little to no preparation while the Bradley is not.

[@Eleolius]

Worth reiterating that "low profile" is of minimal value now a days as a survivability feature... Modern thermals and laser-ranged/radar ranged stabilized FCS mean being small will almost never hide you when the vehicle is active or moving, and the margin of accuracy for near misses is such that once detected, being missed is very unlikely. Bradleys are criticized for being big and tall. They are. But tracked IFVs of this era are not, as a rule, quiet or stealthy. While a BMP's small profile would help it in gentle hills and plains... it also would hurt it in seeing over said divots and hills. Bradleys, like most US AFVs, are very good at hull down, defensive, and bounding fighting styles... even back in GW1, Bradley's tall turrets got hit by enemy BMP low pressure guns. The results were lost commanders/gunners, but not drivers or the passengers- in fact, the Bradley so hit had a turret swap and stayed in service well into the Second Gulf War. A very, very survivable vehicle accross the board. In certain respects, being bigger can actually increase survivability. There is more space between critical components, more material to absorb spalling and blast effects, and more area that can be penetrated without hitting crew/passengers, or hitting fewer of them. Pretty much anywhere you hit a BMP, you're hitting something or someone important. As to the -3 putting it's engine in back, it's a bloody stupid idea. The engine in front serves as a large block of metal and parts that can absorb spall, fragments- even HEAT blasts to protect half the vehicle behind it. This has saved Bradley/other AFV crew, passengers, and even ammunition racks in combat many times. While criticized... 95% of it's criticism has been debunked- and in spite of it's age, and it's near obsolecence compared to a few barely-produced NATO IFVs... it remains relevant, useful, and when employed properly, easily a match for the very best Russia can produce, the BMP3... a vehicle decades it's junior. As far as peer opponents go, only China has an IFV that can really give the Bradley a definitive headache. And it hasn't been built in full numbers quite yet- though China is a different animal from Russia when it comes to procurement, capabilities, and logistics. They're more competent by far. Though, if they are truly on par with the USA, has definitely not been tested or established under realistic conditions. More guys have died inside of BMP series than in M113s... and Bradleys/Warriors combined. An IFV is a bad idea if it is shoehorned into playing "Light Tank" without at least light tank protection. Bradley arguably when uparmored manages to be at such a level of protection reliably- the BMP is a death trap for the crew and the poor guys in the back. Bradley could benefit from a more modern missile, and/or a longer ranged cannon, everyone agrees. But it does have -enough- cannon and the TOW-II is absolutely up to the anti-tank role since Russian APS have shown to be largely fictive rather than real. The jury may be out on that in other scenarios.

[@ArhatWu]

M2 Bradley crew survivability high BMP crew survivability..... none

[@alexcorso7347]

The author confuses the BMP-3 with the BMD-4

[@cdgncgn]

CIA tells he is their expert. Trust me bro expert.

[@cdgncgn]

CIA tells he is their expert. Trust me bro expert.

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

As with all weapon systems, they all have +'s and-'s. Their effectiveness is down to how they are employed, and the crews training and professionalism!

[@MPdude237]

11:37 Can you give some sources in the side protection of the BMPs? To my understanding the BMP-2 can withstand 12.7mm Ball rounds (close range shots or with AP round can penetrate) to the sides, and BMP-3 can withstand 14.5mm to the sides.

[@fabovondestory]

No protection is only a problem for countrys that give a fuck about their soilders

[@fernyrespi8109]

Say that to ukraine human waves tactics

[@fabovondestory]

@@fernyrespi8109 Bachmut 🤣

[@ukuskota4106]

What an irony!

[@davidkramli9300]

​@@fabovondestoryyeah that one of the places where the ukros got slaughtered

[@sweetnerevar7030]

@@davidkramli9300slaughtered so hard that they are on offensive again? Does Ukraine have necromancers or what?

[@sergiotell8856]

In conclusion, with simple improvements such a little bit more investment in electronics, and a external armor package, the bmp-3 would be the most balanced platform.

[@joseaca1010]

Not with that internal layout

[@Twenneful]

No lol. Did the Russia paper tiger media tell you that?

[@sergiotell8856]

@@Twenneful it has a good mobility (is amphibious which gives it more possibilities) has a good firepower. I lacks more advanced electronics and systems and a decent protection (at least it has mine protection capabilities). I don’t see why solving this issues wouldn’t make the bmp-3 a capable platform.

[@JohnDorian-j7x]

Actually, no. The next replacement for Russia's BMPs is actually getting rid of the 100mm gun... because its a 'bit' of an overkill whose rounds take up wayyyyyyy too much space as compared to a more normal canon/gun whilst not providing much more utility than more 'regular' platforms/ifvs. Whatever they decide to do, they'll definitely GET RID of that inauspicious 100mm gun and replace it with something less flashy like a 30-60mm gun which can hold 1000-2000% more rounds; even just removing the 100mm cannon and replacing its room/volume with more 30mm ammo would be a WELCOMED upgrade for most soldiers. SO... if you removed/replaced the ridiculous 100mm canon, re-added some sort of atgm launcher/capability, kept or upgraded the 30mm gun to upwards of 50-60mm, added a few tons of upgraded armor and/or external armor package(s), completely rehauled and gave a makeover to the optics/thermals/electronics/computer/fcs systems, and then recertified it for basic amphibious assault/traverse capabilities... THEN, it would be the most balanced platform!!! LOL, but then it would be a completely different platform - which is exactly what they should do (kind of like the Kurganets-25 or maybe the wheeled VPK-7829 Bumerang they're currently in development of).

[@aceinternational4788]

@@JohnDorian-j7xactually yehc, cope

[@wogelson]

Does anyone have information on Ukrainians using captured BMP-3s? I know they have captured some but I have no clue if they use them in larger numbers.

[@Floreal78]

I have seen some ukrainian use of BMP-3s on drone footage being used singular in combination with wheel-based APC, most likely as firesupport or recce in front of the main column. There was also a platoon sized formation (atleast 4) from one of the Azov-units equipped with BMP-3s driving past the camera. Overall, their number seem limited and they are parcelled out in small numbers.

[@Larry-Lobster]

Great video! Informative and not biased 👍

[@TheRogueEmpire]

lol

[@John-hu9qg]

The Bradley "gamechanger" was opened like a tin of beans by Russian loitering munitions and tandem charge HEAT rounds in ukraine. A lot of hot air was spoken about its performance in Iraq, against a military equipped with systems from the 1960s.

[@sweetnerevar7030]

„Bradley isn’t an invincible tank“ as if anyone claimed it

[@fabik805]

You shouldn't laugh. Look at Russian IFV and tank losses.

[@sixgunsymphony7408]

The BMP was made to be amphibious, but lack of maintenance has made the Russians dependent on bridges to cross rivers.

[@dmitryportnykh2875]

The yesterday press release of Rostec just said that the new batch of BMP-3s delivered to the armed forces has up armor kits (additional armor plates and slat armor seen in some of the footage you used). We should see more such BMPs on the battlefield over the time as they keep producing more and more of them.

[@Amann0407]

Ill believe that when I see it. Also, how many were delivered? Because 760 produced domestically for the Russian armed forces over 35 years isnt exactly inspiring industrial production numbers

[@МихаилЧерников-п2т]

@@Amann0407 lowest estimations for production/ de-conservation is 120/150 pieces per month

[@Amann0407]

@@МихаилЧерников-п2т lol not bmp3. I've seen that at maximum 100 per year and that included export orders. Production over 35 years was 2000 hulls total, some of them don't have thermals either. 760 were in the Russian inventory pre war.

[@a.t6066]

@user-me5oq3kl4h so youre telling my modern Russia can somehow outproduce the USSR...?

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

@@a.t6066 ussr was making 4 tanks a day so uh no theyre producing almost similar rates

[@conradmeek5142]

This is a good analysis with some caveats. The BMP-3s firepower advantage is not great because what it gains in 100mm ammunition is offset by its capacity in other areas. Furthermore this increases critical areas within the vehicle. Combined with already lackluster armor, this is a brutal combination if the vehicle is compromised. I think it is a fair assessment that the gun was intended primarily to employ the Bastion AT missile system. However, given the overall effectiveness of the 30mm gun against an extremely high percentage of targets, the 100mm gun mostly not needed. It would be better to optimize the loadout on the primary system while retaining the missile loadout of previous versions. Adding more ammunition for the 30mm would be a better use of resources, or in place of that, armor.

[@vovkas_owo9224]

for all USSR and Russian BMP to have additional protection kits, for example, BMP and BTR there are sets of grilles, but I do not know why not put even grilles on BMP-3, although officially boasted their presence

[@vovkas_owo9224]

in any case, in duel fights the main thing is how the crew will be able to use the good parts of the technique and do not dilute the bad sides, but usually it is necessary to take into account the cost and mass production in addition to the characteristics as the history of the Second World War with panthers and T-34-85 may repeat

[@vovkas_owo9224]

T-34-85 was inferior to the German Panthers and Tigers but was in larger numbers so was effective

[@2dhistory197]

people : watching humvee bradley leopard 2 challenger 2 being destroyed in ukraine and thinking that abrams will be next too abrams : SAIIIIKE

[@jorgenitales1882]

Abrams will be te next if they send, we thought that about the leos más Challengers anda that is what is happening.

[@lovepeace9727]

BMP-1 and 2 is just a numerous taxi with some decent fire support capabilities, kinda like Stryker, but without thermals BMP-2M with thermals, kornet and addon armor is something weird, almost like more of an anti-tank focused system BMP-3 without thermals and additional armor is super weird, like... they produce an expensive vehicle without putting thermals on them? Cheaper taxi with indirect fire support capability? BMP-3 with thermals and additional armor is a capable IFV that can kinda go toe-to-toe with many NATO's vehicles and beat them in some ways Bradley ODS and newer versions beat BMPs in many many ways, but when it comes to fire power, BMPs win.

[@stephenbrand5661]

I've seen footage of Humvees in Ukraine that kept every occupant alive after eating shells that would've vaporized the contents of any BMP-3, especially one full of 100 mm munitions.