How good is the bmp- 3 in comparrison to the bradley ?

[Hannibal]

The bmp-3 unlike the bmp 2 seem like a pretty good match for the bradly. Can bmp-3 go head to head with the bradley ?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Probably. With the BMP-3's 100mm gun, it can probably take out a Bradley faster than the Bradley can use its TOW. I'm not really an expert on either vehicle, though, and if Bradleys have better optics, they might still have an advantage because it seems that between the two, whichever one sees the enemy first will win.

-FMB

[YankeeDog]

It's a little hard to tell, because the performance of the latest armor upgrade to the Bradley especially is highly classified. It's especially hard to know how well the BMP-3's 30mm autocannon will do against the Bradley's armor.

Keep in mind that they are very different vehicle size class -- a BMP-3 weighs only about 19 tons. A Bradley weighs 30. The BMP-3's lighter weight give it operational and strategic advantages that don't really play a part on the CM battlefield. In some ways, a better comparison is BMP vs. Strkyer -- a BMP-3 weighs just about the same as a Strkyer MGS, and only slightly more than the Strkyer IFV.

But back to the BMP vs. Bradley fight. . . it's probably going to be a very different fight, depending on range.

At short ranges, it's going to be a quick-draw autocannon fight. With all the classified figures, it's hard to know for sure, but my guess is the Bradley has a slight advantage in the Armor/gun matchup. It has a smaller autocannon than the BMP-3, but the BMP-3 armor is also less capable. My SWAG is that the Bradley penetrates the BMP more easily than vice versa.

So if the Bradley fires first, the BMP-3 is dead. If the BMP-3 fires first, maybe the latest applique armor lets the Bradley survive a hit or two. But with the high ROF of the autocannon, my guess is that at short range, it's still a matter of seconds before the BMP-3 does get a good penetrating hit. Perhaps the edge goes to the Bradley for better sensory equipment; hard to say.

At some range, probably neither will be able to reliably penetrate the other from the frontal aspect with autocannon fire. So it's going to be an ATGM fight. The very low velocity of the gun (250m/s) makes it a low hit % choice at long range, and according to the below, it doesn't carry HEAT ammo anyway. So it's going to use the gun tube-launched AT-10 at long range. There are some interesting differences here. The Bradley has to come to a complete stop and deploy the tow launcher to fire a missile. The BMP-3's AT-10 can be fired on the move, and doesn't require the deployment of a launcher; just a missile round up the pipe. I give a slight advantage to the BMP-3 here. Though again, it may well come down to sensory equipment, as the one who shoots first will almost certainly win.

It's the middle range band where things get interesting. . . perhaps at some ranges, the Bradley will be able to penetrate the lighter-armored BMP-3 with its autocannon, but not vice versa. Or maybe not. BMP is also a smaller target, which could come into play.

Cheers,

YD

[ May 17, 2008, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[dima]

BMP-3 does not carry HEAT ammo. Only 100mm HE, ATGM and 30mm HE and AP. The ATGM is an AT-10 "Arkan" (not Kornet) has a tandem charge and will destroy Bradley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M117_Bastion

Having said that, if Bradley spots BMP-3 first it can just fire its autocannon and BMP-3 will not be able to stand up to it for more than a few seconds.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[dima]

Originally posted by Adam1:

They have an anti-tank variant that has 2 AT14 Kornets... or two AT15s.

First time I heard about it. Got a linky?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by dima:

BMP-3 does not carry HEAT ammo. Only 100mm HE, ATGM and 30mm HE and AP. The ATGM is an AT-10 "Arkan" (not Kornet) has a tandem charge and will destroy Bradley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M117_Bastion

Having said that, if Bradley spots BMP-3 first it can just fire its autocannon and BMP-3 will not be able to stand up to it for more than a few seconds.

I stand corrected; edited my post accordingly. I should have checked my facts before spouting off.

I thought I had read somewhere about a 100mm HEAT round for the BMP-3, more for use against hardened fortifications and the like than anti-armor work. . . but I'm probably wrong.

In any event, I think the chances of either vehicle surviving an ATGM hit from the other are very slim, even accounting for reactive armor and the like. It's the autocannon fight that's harder to gauge, esp. how well the BMP-3 autocannon will do against the newer, reinforced Bradley armor. My SWAG is that, at short range, the BMP-3 30mm APDS penetrates the Bradley, even frontally, anyway. But at medium to long ranges, the newer armor may give the Bradley a good degree of resistance to the 30mm APDS, forcing the BMP-3 to rely on the slower-to-react ATGM while the Bradley can still punch holes in the BMP with autocannon fire. This would be a significant advantage.

This is all guess work on my part, though. It will be interesting to see how BFC decides to model it.

Cheers,

YD

[ May 17, 2008, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[YankeeDog]

[Oops. Hit Quote when I meant to hit edit. . .]

[M1A1TC]

Its all about who spots the other first

[dima]

Originally posted by Adam1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3 ?

Well, that one is just an experimental mod. Serial BMP-3's only have AT-10.

[dima]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

It's the autocannon fight that's harder to gauge, esp. how well the BMP-3 autocannon will do against the newer, reinforced Bradley armor. My SWAG is that, at short range, the BMP-3 30mm APDS penetrates the Bradley, even frontally, anyway. But at medium to long ranges, the newer armor may give the Bradley a good degree of resistance to the 30mm APDS, forcing the BMP-3 to rely on the slower-to-react ATGM while the Bradley can still punch holes in the BMP with autocannon fire. This would be a significant advantage.

BMP-3 30mm APDS (3UBR8) won't penetrate frontal armor of Bradley. It penetrates max 29mm at 60degrees at 500m. Bradley's armor is 1 inch of aluminum "5083" plus 30mm of hardened steel. Front is sloped at 60degrees, sides are vertical.

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the info, Dima. I am surprised that the armor penetration of the 30mm APDS isn't better at 500m. That's about the same as the 25mm Bushmaster. I would have thought the larger caliber would give it an edge. Is the 3UBR8 the best AP ammo the Russians curently make for this weapon, or is there something better (perhaps a top-shelf APDS-DU round they do not export??).

Thanks,

YD

[John Kettler]

The Bradley was uparmored in the 1980s specifically to deal with the BMP-2's 30mm cannon. That's why it was fitted with applique armor. Likewise, the BMP-2 got some of its own on the turret front because of Bradley Bushmaster concerns.

This is the current list of exportable 30mm Russian ammunition, which is not the same as the complete list. Would fully expect DU in the home forces only category. Best info I've seen is that the Soviets had it in the inventory back in the 1980s, well before the Berlin Wall fell.

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=254&linkid=2464

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

The BMP-3 is definitely a bigger threat to the Bradley than either of the other two BMPs. And towards infantry it is a beast. But I think overall the Bradley is a better vehicle. As much as the grunts in back of a Brad complain, the poor schnooks stuck in the back of a BMP-3 have a lot more to complain about

Steve

[Lampshade111]

Good point. Perhaps for mechanized infantry training the U.S. Army should stuff the guys in back of a BMP and drive around for awhile so they learn the Bradley is not that bad to be inside of in comparison.

I would give the edge to the Bradley here but the BMP-3 would be more effective at dealing with infantry thanks to the 100mm low velocity gun.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[dima]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Is the 3UBR8 the best AP ammo the Russians curently make for this weapon, or is there something better (perhaps a top-shelf APDS-DU round they do not export??).

Thanks,

YD

YD,

As far as I know the 3UBR8 is the best russian-made ammo (at least available for export) for the 30mm 2A42 gun. However I've been told that Oerlikon offers ammo for 2A42 cannon and it is likely more capable.

[dima]

Originally posted by Lampshade111:

I would give the edge to the Bradley here but the BMP-3 would be more effective at dealing with infantry thanks to the 100mm low velocity gun.

Also BMP-3 is amphibious.

[M1A1TC]

Doesnt it also have adjustable hydraulic suspension?

[John Kettler]

M1A1TC,

Here's a great vid on the BMP-3, complete with a comparison to the Bradley. Unfortunately for me, it's in Russian.

Here's one in English on the BMP-3M, showing the Arkan missile in detail, describing radical improvements in the ammo for both the 30mm and the 100mm, fire control upgrades, etc.

A second one in English, beautifully showing off the applique armor on the turret front, which is harder to spot in the other two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_H1G8z18o&feature=related

This one's in Russian, but the real story is in the info rich sidebar to the right. Meaty!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhlY3L3dkA&feature=related

Greek Army BMP-3 live fire exercise with infantry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dts580XDvvQ&feature=related

Regards,

John Kettler

[M1A1TC]

In the first video it says that it was created for new doctine, "Strategic maneuver". It even has a bathroom inside

It said that it has enough fuel and resources to drive from Ural mountains to the English channel

The newest version, BMP3M, can stop small caliber cannon rounds (like 25mm) and it's diesel engine power was increased by 30%. It has Shtora, Arena, and ERA armor

They compared it to Bradley among other APCs, and said that BMP3 has more ammo loadout (1 ton) and is amphibious. It is also more reliable mechanically

[ May 18, 2008, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: M1A1TC ]

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

Which is odd, Steve, since the US had a dismounted strategy when the Brad went online and yet the Soviets have a "stay mounted in the assault" doctrine. Now the Stryker is a third category all together imo, a fighting platform for infantry rather than an infantry destroying vehicle or anti-IFV vehicle. Is that too strange an interpretation

It is always interesting to see how different Soviet/Russian/Chinese thinking is compared to what the West thinks is optimal (which varies some, of course). Even more interesting is to see the motivations behind these differences. Economics is generally one of the biggest reasons.

The Soviet/Russian/Chinese concept appears to be identify the optimal solution, then figure out the economics of it, then develop compromised tools and compromised tactics that work as best they can to achieve compromised goals.

The West tends to identify the optimal solution, develop optimal tactics to achieve it, design the optimal tools to make the tactics work, then write blank checks to get it done. At some point someone questions the blank checks, or the overly complicated project fails to meet the optimal design goals, and the project is either cancelled or comes out compromised. This then requires an adjustment of tactics and possibly compromised goals.

As with 99.999% of things in life, no system is perfect. The fact that politics, greed, incompetency, and honest mistakes are involved in both of these situations means that the end product won't be optimal. Asking which one is better isn't relevant... rather, does the selected system achieve the end goals of the nation state that employs them? There is not one answer to this, but I would say that since WWII the West's approach has produced overall better results for the West than the Soviet approach has produced for the Soviet Union or its client states (who employed a sub optimal copy of the Soviet system). It will be interesting to see how thing go with a resurgent Russia and China.

Another trend is that volunteers don't show up if they feel their lives aren't a priority. Conscripts in democratic societies can cause a lot of problems through their own political expressions (after they get out of uniform), through family, or through their elected representatives. Conscripts in dictatorial societies might not be any happier about adverse circumstances than their Western counterparts, but they tend to be more ignorant of the extent of the issues and how it could be better. But in extremely stressful situations they become unreliable, such as the Tzar found out in late WWI and the Soviets found out in their last days. Just look at how East Germany collapsed... all that military power just sat around and let the government fall. The DDR forces because they were tired of the BS, the Soviet forces because they knew a crackdown would likely result in their demise very quickly. In Romania the bulk of the armed forces fought against the government (a mutiny). That scared the pants off of the others and accelerated the collapse in other countries.

Anyway, my point is that Western vehicles basically have to be built with things like comfort, survivability, etc in mind because the individual soldier has a say in how he/she is valued. In the traditional Soviet/Chinese system the individual only matters to the extent that his survivability is sufficient to aid the greater plan. The early Russian designs have been no different, nor have the more recent Chinese designs. It will be interesting to see that as Russia moves to a more professional military if this changes and that their vehicles wind up looking more like Western ones.

That's just my opinion of course

Steve

[ May 18, 2008, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[John Kettler]

Steve,

The fighting compartments of the BMP-3 and SPRUT-S

seem to me to have layout and ergonomics on par, if not better than, most western AFVs. Mobility, acceleration and handling are first rate, and the stabilization systems permit things we can't do, such as ATGM firing on the move, a capability going back at least as far as the IT-1 Drakon. Both AFVs are relatively quiet and low in profile, as opposed to the roaring, snorting, smoke belching, towering house on tracks that is the Bradley, compared to which, even the M88 Hercules ARV is quiet. This is from direct experience at 10 foot range in the Ft. Benning motor pool.

The lack of acoustic stealth

was so great that during the Cold War while stationed with the 2/11 ACR right up on the IGB, my brother and his guys would happily have traded their Bradley CFVs for the Bundeswehr Aufklarungs unit's Luchs 8 wheeled ACs (met during exercises at Graf). Quiet, quick in and out of action (front and rear drivers, just like in WW II), and with just enough firepower (20mm Rheinmetall cannon) to get the job done and not enough to encourage combat with heavy forces.

That said, I'm sure things are decidedly less rosy in BMP-2 land, though paradise compared to the poor blighters in BMP-1s. Got to climb in the back of one of those at the NTC while visiting my brother. Pass!

I think part of what we're seeing in the newer Russian AFVs is being driven by global marketability issues, but I believe it has more to do with the Soviet, and later Russian, realization

that there was something to be said for a much smaller, better equipped and far better trained military, with reforms in this area going back to Ogarkov for sure and continued by Akhromeyev and successors. Am pretty sure the 82nd would love the goodies its Russian counterparts have available (BMD-4, ANONA, VENA, SPRUT-S, etc.) as just one for instance. They all seem like solid, highly capable, well conceived and well executed weapons, and this is from the vantage point of having infinitely more material available from which to make that assessment than I did in my military aerospace days.

Regards,

John Kettler