Talk:M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Incorrect Image

The bottom picture, of a destroyed armored vehivle, is an M113, not Bradley. The road wheels are a dead giveaway. This pic should be moved to the M113 page.

[edit] M2A3

M2A3 redirects to here, despite the fact that this page never mentions the M2A3. globalsecurity.org has a page on it.

M2A3 is a BFV. 75.15.186.175 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Development Problems

Readers who come here looking for background on the events that inspired the book and movie The Pentagon Wars, a specific section on the Bradley's development woes would be helpful.

[edit] BMP-2

How could Bradley be designed to trump BMP-2, I mean Bradley's development began in late 70's and BMP-2 entered service around 1980. I think that Bradley was actually US Army's answer to BMP-1, instead of BMP-2.

The Bradley didn't enter service until 1982. The developmental steps (MICV, AIFV, Lynx, etc) are better thought of as designed to match the BMP-1. The BMP-2 is much more of an IFV than the BMP-1, which is still very much an APC. thatguy96 11:58 November 25, 2005
Well, the BMP-1 is a MICV or an IFV, eventhough it is the first of its kind in the World. It is a tracked and armored personnel carrier mounting a cannon instead of a machine-gun, i.e an IFV. The BMP-2, initially known as BMP M1981, was seen for the first time in 1981 when Bradley was just entering service. Do you really think that this had any effect in the design of Bradley, first of which were then factory fresh? It is simply impossible that an IFV is designed to trump an IFV that is not known to exist.

[edit] Insurgent Attacks

I saw a picture of a totally wrecked Bradley on Militaryphotos.net, the entire top of the hull including the turret had been sheared off. Are the insurgent’s rpg-7’s and other AT weapons capable of doing this or is it more likely that it had been abandoned and whacked by the Coalition boys afterwards?

I'm pretty sure a couple of RPG-7's or powerful explosives could have done the job but I have to admit, your second option also seems very likely.chubbychicken 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
During Desert Storm, a Bradley from A 1/5 Cav was hit in the turret by something like a 100mm recoilless round. It entered just below the gunner's sight, but did not shear the turret. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
An IED could likely have caused this damage as well (rigged artillery shells and the like have been said to be capable of literally flipping M1A2 tanks over). However, it is equally likely that it could've been completely destroyed in a preventitive coalition action (though I don't know what purpose this would serve). -- Thatguy96 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

the purpose it would serve would be to destroy any recoverable equipment. from the bradley. what is most likely was that it was a mobility kill, and the airforce bombed it to destroy classified equipment. if part of the hull itself was destroyed, with the bottom largely intact, then that's almost definitely what happened. any ied would've destroyed the bottom primarily, and potentially knocking the turret off. an rpg-7 would in no way be capable of that kind of damage, unless it managed to penetrate the ammo storage compartment and the rounds cooked off, but that's very unlikely. i'm just speculating here, but i would imagine the bradley would have the same blow out panels in it's ammo storage that the abrams does, considering it was designed second. i could be wrong. however, if that is the case, it would totally preclude any kind of rpg from doing the damage.Parsecboy 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any blowout panels in the Bradley. 300 rounds of ammo are loaded in the ready boxes in the turret below the gun mechanism. The ready boxes are just sheet steel boxes. Compared to an Abrams, the Bradley turret is pretty tight, so anything that is going to cook a 25mm round is going to be catastophic from the start. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement?

"The Bradley, named after WWII General Omar Bradley, is a replacement for the M113 family of APCs and consists of two types of vehicles, the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle."

I thought the M2 and the M3 were supposed to supplement the M113,not replace it. Dudtz 8/17/06 7:15 PM EST

It replaced it as a real fighting vehicle. The M113 is now primarily used as a command and support vehicle. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.chubbychicken 07:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Real,what do you mean by that? The M113 is an APC,The M2 Bradley is an IFV. Dudtz 8/20/06 12:50 PM EST

The M113 was used as a fighting vehicle until the Bradley displaced it. Specifically, the ACAV version. The US Army had a M113 Assault Course as late as 1990. The statement in the article above needs clarification.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, but does it seem that there is a bias towards the M113, and againstt the implementation of the M2/M3. Why most the bradly be continuosly compared to the M113 in a negative way. The M2 is a replacement and a suprior vehicle. This bias shpuld be corrected. 4/9/2007

It is not just you. The article smells like Sparky's "Gavin" circle jerk group. M113 sucked by the eighties and was a deathtrap on tracks.

[edit] BRADLEY NAMING CONVENTIONS

You have stated the following:

[edit] 1 Production History

The Bradley, named after WWII General Omar Bradley, is a replacement for the M113 family of APCs and consists of two types of vehicles, the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. The M3 CFV was originally going to be named after General Jacob L. Devers, but it was decided the Bradley name would apply to both, since both vehicles are based on the same chassis (they differ in only some details). The M2 carries a crew of three and a six-man infantry squad. The M3 on the other hand carries only a two-man scout team and additional radios, TOW and Dragon or Javelin missiles.

Where did you find the source for this statement? According to Camp Colt:..., the Bradley was always to be a composite vehicle, designed specifically to satisfy the needs of both Infantry and Cavalry. That being true, and given the Army's naming conventions of using a common name for all versions of a program that share all or most components, it is highly unlikely that they would assign a seperate name for what is - for want of a better description - essentially an identical vehicle which is internally re-arranged to fulfill similar but distinct missions.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The M3 Bradley CFV is a designation confirmed by Army sources. While it seems that they do not warrant different designations, it is likely that the history behind who it was to be named after had some part in the desire for a seperate designation. By your logic there should have been no way that the XM107 rifle could have come into being, since it should have been, from all accounts a variant of the M82 rifle, already type classified. The Army is well known for its refusal to change things once on paper, and it was likely that after the M3 Devers CFV designation was dropped, it was simply easier to change the name rather than the entire designation. -- Thatguy96 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, what is the source of the Devers statement? I did a google, and the hits returned this article and derivatives thereof. If there is no citation, then it needs to go. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

  • Lead-in needs expansion to a full paragraph.
  • Production History: really does not discuss production. It has a description that might fit better in the lead-in and descriptions of books and a movie about the production.
  • Overview: duplication of aramaments in the lead and in the aramaments section.
  • Operators: US and Saudi Arabia

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armour

Does anyone know about the armour thickness of the M2 Bradley?chubbychicken 07:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the thickness but I do know that it is a compressed aluminum alloy, as for the reactive armor I'd perfer not to get into the specifics just to say that it defeats low yield projectile explosives I.E. RPG's

[edit] TOW/transmission

"The M2A0 was can be identified by its standard TOW missile system and 500-horsepower engine with manual transmission."

If you can look at a Bradley and identify the model by this, you must be psychic. The TOW missile changed, but there are no apparent changes to the launcher. The Bradley has always had a automatic transmission- made by Cummings as I recall. --67.129.240.243 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) --Gadget850 ( Ed) (must have got logged out)

[edit] M7 BCOTM

I was a driver for a M7 varient of the bradley in Iraq, and was disapointed to find there is no entry for that partcular varient. The vehicle is basically a TOC crammed into the back of a bradley and features 11 antennae, and 2 satelite dishes (ruggedized). It is meant as a generals command vehicle, though it sees little use in this war. There are only 5 M7s in existance, and I maintained and drove 1 of them, so I think I might be of some help on the entry for this rare vehicle.

If anyone wants to help me make an entry for the M7, contact me at bschak1984@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anathema1917 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


edit 18JAN2007

The M7 Fire Support Team Vehicle is not a BCOTM, although they do share many common features, the distinguishing feature of the BCOTM is the server stack and multiple computer terminals in what would otherwise be the dismount seating area. As noted, only 5 of these vehicles exist, 4 of them being in "active" use and 1 sitting in a mueseum. The general attitude towards this vehicle is that it was an interesting excursion, but not worthwhile to persue. 68.116.244.252 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Anathema1917

[edit] Incorrect Figure

It is said "As of early 2006, total losses, including friendly fire and non-combat incidents, were at 50 Bradleys."

Link provided as reference talks about combat losses only. Looks small anyway.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.9.68 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-17

I corrected it just now to say simply "combat losses". -Amatulic 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle

Is this still in use- I thought it was replaced by the Linebacker? As I understand it, this was a mod designed to carry a dismount Stinger team. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armament

"(1) THE BASIC LOAD FOR EACH IFV IS:

   (A) 25MM - 900 RDS ON-BOARD, 500 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (B) 7.62MM (COAX MG) - 2200 RDS ON-BOARD, 1070 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (C) 7.62MM (M60 MG) - 2200 RDS ON-BOARD, 1200 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (D) 5.56MM - 2160 RDS ON-BOARD, 1080 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (E) TOW - 7 RDS ON-BOARD, 6 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (F) LAW - 3 RDS ON-BOARD."

-http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/bnI006AA.htm. The article never said anything about an M60, 5.56mm gun, or LAW. Are these secondary weapons that the article didn't mention? My first thought was that this must be ammo for the infantry squad, but an equivalent page for the M3 shows the same ammo in larger quantities. They seem a bit big for crew sidearms. Does anyone know what these refer to? Also, what does bulk loaded mean? 69.12.155.64 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how old that loadout is, but the article refers to the only weapon I know for sure out of that that's still in the loadout. Note that's from the BIOP for the original M2, not any of the follow-on variants as well. The M72 LAW has likely been replaced by the M136 if still in the loadout at all. I would guess the M60 MG is likely a commander's weapon, which is not on production vehicles (unless you can find me a picture with one fitted). The 5.56mm refers to the M231 FPW that's mentioned in the article. -- Thatguy96 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That list seems quite old. The M60 was never mounted on a Bradley. As of 1993, there were only 2 M60s in each Bradley company in 2nd Bde, 1st Cav- I'm not even sure the M60 is still issued. The LAW was out of issue well before then. Ammo would be ready loaded in the weapon or bulk loaded- stored in the vehicle, generally under the floorboards. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggested move

i suggest we move this to "bradley fihgting vehcials" as the artical refers to the M2 and M3.(Esskater11 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Comment/Support: I suggest we move this page to "M2/M3 Bradley" or "M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle" rather than that suggested. Technically the M2 is the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and the M3 is the Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV). To clarify the point, I support the name change, but to the name I suggested instead of simply "Bradley Fighting Vehicles." You wouldn't suggest moving say "M16 rifle" to "M16 rifles" to cover its subvariants. -- Thatguy96 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
support This article also covers the M6, M7 and other variants. There is not enough difference there to warrant a fork to a new article. Bradley fighting vehicles does make sense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

so far it seems noon e objects but im gona leave it to smeone tohchange it(Esskater11 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

The new name is non-intuitive and the use of a plural does not follow Wikipedia convention. However, your juvenile action of moving the page (to a mis-spelled new name) after a whole 3 days of discussion are a fait-accompli as it can't be moved back without an admin. Well done, editors of your skill and judgement are what make Wikipedia what it is today. Riddley 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm going to be equally arrogant and just change it again hehe. -- Thatguy96 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you for being an dick and not politley correct me, i made an honest mistake i was just trying to help. (Esskater11 02:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Incorrect Caption

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the photo shown in the "overview" section is not an M2A3. It lacks the Commander's Independent Viewer (CIV). Best guess based on the color, TOW launcher, and location is an M2A2 ODS Variant. Thoughts? SuperJewBoy 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:M2 loading.jpg Yes-this looks like an A2. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burton Controversy

It seems to me that the whole 'live fire' testing hubub was rather glibly mentioned in the article considering its importance at the time (combined with other similar glitches with different programs). The subsequent throwaway line about the vehicle's survivability (which was displayed in the Gulf) would be disputed by Burton who, in his book, refers to a number of changes that were made to the BFV. These modifications, he argues, are a big part of the reason for success in the field. I think it might be useful to take the small mention of this part of development and expand it into its own section, and I'll do that a bit later on unless anyone has any particular objections... it'll probably take awhile though, I'll have to find all my docs on my hard drive that I used for a project involving the BFV before... Epthorn 19:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign users?

As I remember reading Jane's vehicle guides a few years ago, Saudi Arabia did receive some 400 M2s. Should I add it? I forgot which edition. Ominae (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M6 More effective?

I don't think it's more effective because of fireports. The fireports are very hard to use and even when they can be used the infantry can only fire a M4 carbine or similar gun, whilst the occupants are made more vulnerable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobodymk2 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)