I notice it’s not the MBT’s that are making the difference. Having a large cannon doesn’t seem to make a difference when a Bradley is taking out T-90’s
I mean the entire Fulda Gap theory has been turned on it’s head and although drones are making a big difference, I can’t believe that’s the only reason.
Anyone got any guess’s?
All I have are guesses and assumptions (I do know the history of the Allies overwhelming the Germans with Shermans, due to less costly and complex vehicles, in WW II).
Are we seeing the same thing with Bradleys vs T-90’s?
I assume the Bradleys cost less (leading to more on the battle field), are smaller, faster, quieter and easier to hide.
Are they easier to maintain and operate?
Bradleys are probably primarily engaging with TOW or similar missiles, shoot-n-scoot. More like a WWII tank-destroyer.
Russian tanks are very complex because they use autoloader mechanisms instead of a fourth crew member. IIRC those mechanisms are the single biggest point-of-failure.
No Bro they close in and fight toe to toe, seriously.
The thing is we gave them a Brigade or so of M1’s and a Brigade of Bradleys.
Are Bradleys eassier to maintain at ten/twenty level maintenance. As far as I know the Bradley hasn’t had a viable set of electronic schematics since the 90’s. So thirty and forty level maintenance becomes parts swaping rather than repairs.
They aren’t ffighting at standoff ranges it’s belt buckle to belt buckle. One fight had the bradley very near the T90 and just out racing it’s turret while firing in to the turret ring.
I would say one serious impact should knock the crap out of an autoloader.
Micheal Wittman’s Gunner Balthazar Wolhz didn’t have any front teeth left because the impact of rounds on the turret had smashed his face in to the sights too many times. So if it will knock a Mans teeth out it might likely pop a gear in an autoloader.
Going for Golden BB shts, then. More like a Fairey Swordfish that Bismarck’s flak directors culdn’t match the pace of, albeit the Swordfish were too SLOW to track.
Didn’t see a 25mm chaingun penetrating armor, but precise shots against mechanical weak points explains it.
“Stupid, but ballsy.” - Gib in True Lies
Up close and personal the 25mm rounds have a better chance of penetrating more armor, the turret traverse of the MBT can’t keep up, and even if rounds aren’t immediately penetrating they’re fucking up optics and sensors, rattling the crew, chewing up tracks, igniting exterior fuel tanks, and generally degrading the MBT’s fighting ability. Once they get the rear and start thrashing 25mm rounds into the engine it’s all over.
Plus Soviet designed MBT’s with their autoloader use a carousel magazine under the turret. How much side armor do the hulls have? Can 25mm AP rounds penetrate and get into the magazine from the side?
I will look for the YouTube Video again, but they were close and as the Tank Turret seemed to move the Bradley just kept hammering and moving and adjusting their fire.
I believe the floor plate steel under the Tank would have to be pretty substancial, Land Mines, being land mines that’s no place for this armor, now how much that thins out as it comes off the floor plate is the question. I would however guess it’s pretty thick to support the suspension and drives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrrso5JDR5I
The Tanks are farther, but still closer than I remembered, the PC fight was close, much closer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khXMVPpxdxg
This Guy has the Bradley 50 meters from the Tank, I thought it was closer.
Several factors:
The Bradleys Ukraine got were M2A2-ODS-SA. Which means many improvements from Desert Storm/OIF learnings and newer tech. Including:
The A3 and A4 models used by US has even more HP, additional electronics, etc.
My IN son went heavy after his para time as LT, and commanded a Bradley company for his CPT time. Big improvements, and they joke about the Bradley myths from Desert Storm & OIF as they are much improved. The A3 and A4 mainly added the independent cupola viewer for the commander, but also even more HP.
One of the myths was range/speed relative to the Abrahams tanks. Even the A2 has much further range now, and the A3/A4’s even more speed. (The A2 lost top speed, but gained torque offroad and-acceleration). A2-ODS also got the newer transmission as part of the ODS upgrade.
So now US logistics planning is done around the M1’s as the Bradleys have double or more the range offroad or during road march. Just the difference between diesels and turbines. Even the current M1’s with APU’s still need fuel more frequently
Chain gun is still quite effective, high rate of fire and can instantly switch between AP and HE rounds. Not a tank main gun, but does have many tank kills. (think Sherman vs Tiger/Panther)
The “SA” improvement is essentially the electronics/data bus from the A3, as well as the improved fire suppression. Laser targeting, blueforce/tac nav.
No, they are not tanks. But can hold their own against soviet era armor which is most of what they are encountering in UKR as long as they are well fought. Which by all inclinations the UKR forces seem to be adept at.
Much less maintenance, the Cummins are tried and true reliable powerplants. I could see how it might be more maintainable for them than the M1’s. Their favorite AFV is the swedish CV-90 apc. And it has the best stats in terms of survivability.
All of this is public info, just worth mentioning as many are familiar with the original Bradley. Probably the biggest current complaint is capacity, it creates a smaller IN squad than they prefer.
**
pinzgauer**Senior Member
Several factors:
I agree with your observations however; this by American Doctrine would appear to be a complete anonmaly..No matter how new and improved it is, it was never supposed to be fender to fender fighting T-90’s.
Obviously something has changed and in this case it likely to not be drones.
It’s looking to me like the ground has a difficult time supporting a heavier vehicle, this it’s manuverability as you see here is severly degraded and it simply cannot keep up moving, traversing and shooting with the Bradley.
You are absolutely right, and by doctrine and practice would not normally go up against a T-90 with the chain gun. TOW medicine.
But… the drone situation has both sides putting cages around them to disrupt shaped charges. Don’t know if that stops a TOW or not.
The nuance is “mission kill” vs hull penetration. What the US would call disabled.
UKR is targeting optics and turret ring with the chain gun on the T-90’s and similar with some good effect. The well know video was due to being too close for TOW by accident. But it is a tactic they train on. Blind them and jam the turret, and they normally abandon the tank. They also will destroy tracks.
They also apparently train for rear shots into the engine area and can disable them that way.
As to offensive use of drones in general, there is a ton of video on how UKR is fighting with past and current generation drones. They don’t use tanks or apcs. Heavily dug in.
Both sides target AFV’s with FPV (first person video) suicide drones, many times flying into the hatch.
Also interesting to see the video on them hunting incoming Russian drones with their own drones. Styrofoam plane type drones carrying a kilo of explosive used against the Russian version of the Shahad drone and their recon drones. (and occasionally quad copter types)
Amazing to see how fast tactics are evolving (transition to Fiber Optics, etc)
And it appears armored tactics are evolving similarly.
All that said, its ironic that even the reviled Bradley M2 and M2A1 killed more tanks in desert storm than the M1’s did, though that was mostly TOW missiles.
After WWII the Army Armor Branch decided “Tank Destroyers” a waste of time and money, I think they were wrong but, having decided to go with MBT’s, they went all in and we now can’t turn back.
The Advantage of the Tank Destroyer was to be heavily armed, lightly armored and very fast and mobile. That seems to be what is now winning in Ukraine.