Bradleys

[CanuckGamer]

One of my friends and I have been playing Cold War by PBEM for a few months now.  Another friend and have the Shock Force 2 Demo and were curious how that compared to Cold War since I believe it covers a later period than Cold War.  We are playing a scenario called Wilcox.  We're both surprised at how easy it is to knock out Bradley's with AT weapons employed by infantry.  I read somewhere that Bradley's had some type of reactive armor but in this scenario it has been one hit and done.  So far about 6 Bradley's have been knocked out.  It seems they are not any better than WW2 APC's except they have more firepower.

[Brille]

By "AT weapons" you mean RPG7 or other assets ?

I must say that I dont have that much experience with Bradleys vs HEAT rounds simply because I dont play CMSF2 that often and most of the times there are other things that destroy my IFVs.

However the RPG7 also can have tandem warheads and so can the RPG29. 

ATGM systems are in another league and I almost doubt that a Bradley can survive those.

Locate where the Brads got hit. If it doesnt say in the hit text "Hit reactive Armor" or something like that, it can be that it landed on an ERA free space.

In my experience vehicles and tanks in CM are frankly often hit at the lower hull. That would be the place where the Brad has absolutely no ERA in place.

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

I read somewhere that Bradley's had some type of reactive armor.

To the best of my knowledge Bradleys did not have reactive armor before 1988.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

10 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

...It seems they are not any better than WW2 APC's except they have more firepower.

Brads come with and without ERA in SF2, plus infantry AT weapons have become much more lethal over time.

They're much better than WW2 APC's imho.

As for firepower:

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh this is the SF2 forum. LOL. I thought it was Cold War.

[Chibot Mk IX]

you have too little samples here. 

Yes, in CMCW the Bradleys is supposed to be fragile, it cannot resist the 14.5mm AP.

But in CMSF2 its defense improved a lot. I have seen my AT-4/9M111 stopped by an ERA block. 

[George MC]

11 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

One of my friends and I have been playing Cold War by PBEM for a few months now.  Another friend and have the Shock Force 2 Demo and were curious how that compared to Cold War since I believe it covers a later period than Cold War.  We are playing a scenario called Wilcox.  We're both surprised at how easy it is to knock out Bradley's with AT weapons employed by infantry.  I read somewhere that Bradley's had some type of reactive armor but in this scenario it has been one hit and done.  So far about 6 Bradley's have been knocked out.  It seems they are not any better than WW2 APC's except they have more firepower.

In Wilcox Syrians have RPG29s which will easily pen a BIFV. Look up RPG29 in the manual if not familiar. They're deadly...

"The tandem warhead, classified as the PG-29V, can effectively counter ERA by detonating the explosive blocks with its first charge and penetrating the base armor with the second."

[Halmbarte]

11 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

you have too little samples here. 

Yes, in CMCW the Bradleys is supposed to be fragile, it cannot resist the 14.5mm AP.

But in CMSF2 its defense improved a lot. I have seen my AT-4/9M111 stopped by an ERA block. 

In CW I ran BTR vs M2 at 25m on a flat range and was unable to get pens from the front, sides, or rear. RPG7 & AT7 get pens from the front. 

H

[MikeyD]

In CMSF2 Bradley comes in two flavors, either with or without reactive armor. I just checked Wilcox. No era armor package. So you're basically naked.

[Chibot Mk IX]

On 2/17/2024 at 12:00 AM, Halmbarte said:

In CW I ran BTR vs M2 at 25m on a flat range and was unable to get pens from the front, sides, or rear. RPG7 & AT7 get pens from the front. 

H

Ahhh, Thanks

I would argue with the Dev team this is not correctly modeled. 

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

Ahhh, Thanks

I would argue with the Dev team this is not correctly modeled. 

Wikipedia says "Spaced laminate armor offering 14.5 mm all around protection. " link

Citation says "Also know as M2A0/M3A0 Bradley, it was amphibious and was capable of protection against 14.5 mm AP." but doesn't say over what arcs.link

H

[Brille]

On 2/19/2024 at 9:43 PM, Chibot Mk IX said:

Ahhh, Thanks

I would argue with the Dev team this is not correctly modeled. 

Maybe you mistake it for the M113 ?

Sure the Bradley was very thinnly armored in comparison to today but one might expect that an infantry FIGHTING vehicle would at least take hits from the most common "small" arms placed on enemy vehicles. This would be 12,7mm MG and the 14,5mm MG on BTR, BRDM and AA MG on tanks.

 

Later the Bradleys armor was upgraded to even withstand up to 30mm canon rounds, most likely because of the appearence of the BMP2 and wider usage of autocanons instead of heavy mg.

That was the point where the Brad also lost his amphibious ability.

[Centurian52]

I think the Bradley could always withstand 14.5mm MG fire. It has always had tougher armor than the M113, which is part of why I don't think it has never been amphibious. I'd guess that it was probably 30mm autocannon fire that the Bradley was initially vulnerable to, and that it has since been upgraded to resist.

Edited February 26 by Centurian52

[Halmbarte]

The original Bradley could swim after erecting a swimming screen.

 

H

 

[Centurian52]

On 2/26/2024 at 6:04 PM, Halmbarte said:

The original Bradley could swim after erecting a swimming screen.

 

H

 

I stand corrected. Fortunately my comment has a double negative in it that I must have missed when I was checking for typos, so what I said was accidentally correct.

[Splinty]

The M2A2 version of the Bradley was uparmored to resist 30mm autocannons in the mid eighties.