The strength of the M2 Bradley IFV

[RedWardancer]

Only the first three minutes of this video is what counts here.

 

[Captain_Colossus]

the current battle of avdiivka is underway where these bradleys are operating, and ukraine is losing.  from what i saw in the follow up to this particular event, this same bradley was knocked out either by artillery or a mine

last year there was video of a russian t-90 killing a bradley. no one was saying that the t-90 was a supertank that had completely determined the outcome of the war.

 

we have seen again and again on both sides that the attacker faces challenges that you will simply risk losses whenever you try to gather a large effort- which means shortly after you have formed up in columns you are drawing attention to yourself for the artillery and drone spotters- the fact is that vehicle vs. vehicle engagements are still very rare, any particular action you see is not demonstrative of the big picture. most tallies are accounted for by mines and drones and artillery, the latter having the most overall effect, including some unique tools available only to russia- the TOS systems and the fuel air bombs obliterating neighborhoods. and so this is a war of attrition where numbers matters and whoever cannot put up the numbers has to find creative solutions. but there is only so far that can go, and eventually it starts looking like the end is in sight- not perhaps in the next several months but perhaps a year from now the situation will have shifted to some inevitable conclusion. it is just taking time to get there in a slow roll

 

so again, these vehicle profiles don't mean much except to prop up what people people already want to believe. in the larger scheme of things ukraine is deep trouble no matter what people want to believe

 

 

Edited February 15 by Captain_Colossus

[thewood]

Do you guys so lack self control that you spout off on political stuff at the mere mention of Ukraine?

 

Can you take it to this thread where a game forum is already wrecked?

 

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/140931-how-hot-is-ukraine-gonna-get/

[Ssnake]

It's difficult to isolate the discussion of an ongoing war from the reasons why the war is fought; nevertheless, let this be a call to order to maintain the communication discipline as established by the forum rules of conduct.

 

Neither Bradley nor T-90 are invincible machines. A duel between the two will have a lot of advantages on the side of the T-90. But the nature of tactical engagements incurs an element of chance as anyone who has played a number of non-trivial scenarios in Steel Beasts will have experienced first-hand. It should also be mentioned that Steel Beasts does not invoke reaction modifiers for psychological conditions (although they most certainly will play a role whenever humans are involved), just as it doesn't involve at least one other element of this engagement, armed FOV drones.

Specifically, the T-90 might have easily prevailed had it been in the company of dismounted infantry or at least one or two other combat vehicles. As it was, it found itself isolated inside an urban area, which most certainly diminishes its combat value. One might argue that these are one of the few constellations when a Bradley has a survival chance at all in a duel situation (and it still took two Bradleys and an FPV to bring the T-90 into a situation where the crew decided to bail). If the video shows one thing, it is that it's not "easy" for a Bradley to defeat a T-90 (but the chance is greater than zero).

[Volcano]

Certainly all that is possible in SB, apart from the fact that the tank crew will not decide to abandon the vehicle. But perhaps, one day in the future, the AI crew could decide to abandon a vehicle and that could be based on a 'crew quality' setting, with "elite" crews never doing so (death before dismount and all that). But firing 50+ autocannon rounds at a tank at point blank range will certainly damage sensors, blind and in some cases disable, a tank in SB.

 

Another thing we should consider one day is modeling damage on the smoke grenade launchers where the smoke rounds may detonate or fire off when hit, which seems to happen, perhaps infrequently, on both sides.

 

As a side note, what I find funny is the narration of these videos. In most you can tell that they do not really know much about the subject matter. Still, the videos are interesting.

 

I think what SB shows is what we are seeing now -- usually if a tank is in a knife fight with an IFV, then usually the tank will lose. It is almost (but not nearly) as bad as a tank being point blank range with infantry. The primary goal of a tank crew is to avoid a knife fight with anything but another tank, and to totally avoid infantry as much as possible.

[Captain_Colossus]

1 hour ago, Volcano said:

 But perhaps, one day in the future, the AI crew could decide to abandon a vehicle and that could be based on a 'crew quality' setting, with "elite" crews never doing so (death before dismount and all that).

 

 

👌   if it were tied to the mission editor logic, then it can be a flexible user defined option rather than subject to user complaints of any hard set limitation or imterpretation- just like currently surrender if, or disembark if, now you have eject crew if

[Volcano]

Yeah, that could work too. 😁

[BlackDeath]

On 2/13/2024 at 2:24 AM, Volcano said:

I think what SB shows is what we are seeing now -- usually if a tank is in a knife fight with an IFV, then usually the tank will usually lose. It is almost (but not nearly) as bad as a tank being point blank range

with infantry. The primary goal of a tank crew is to avoid a knife fight with anything but another tank.

It already happened before, here a BTR4 disabled a T72.

 

BTW, is it possible to disable GAS in SB? I never experienced that as far as I remember. 

[Volcano]

Yes, the GAS is a damage type, and vehicles have this applied to appropriate areas. The issue is that the GAS is usually heavily protected, so for it to get damaged then you likely have all sorts of other problems (most GAS sights are protected from small arms fire, either by their small size and location, or thickness of glass - which we are generous here, since we don't really model a cracked/damaged state, it either works or is blacked out). So, for a GAS to be damaged, it likely means you took a larger round impact in the area, which probably means you have other serious damages, or even vehicle destruction.

 

I the case of the T-72, there is no GAS, at least on the older types. You the GPS and the unity sight (forward vision block, essentially) so really, it is quite vulnerable in that regard (in a duel) with no protected backup sight, really.

 

 

[Ssnake]

Of course, adding an auxiliary sight also means to add a perforation to the mantlet ... which inevitably is a weak point; maybe the primary additional reason why Soviet designers decided against it (T-64, designed with few cost restraints, doesn't have one either).

But the two examples in the thread show that it's not just about armor perforation. Damages can also occur from comparatively weak rounds (1st Bradley was shooting HE only), if only enough hits occur, or one hits a particularly vulnerable spot. Tank protection is much a matter of armor thickness as it is a matter of chance. You put armor where hits are most frequently occurring (more than 60% are usually in the turret front area) and reduce protection in other places as a trade-off to find a good overall balance.

 

A GAS allows you to keep fighting after you've been hit, if with reduced effectiveness. But it can also increase the chance of receiving a hit that perforates the armor (which is why it was relocated between Leopard 2A4 and 2A5). So, is it worth it? Depending on one's line of thinking a tank designer may opt against it. Russia may have lost between 2,500 and 3,000 MBTs in the last two years. How many of them would have survived if there had been an auxiliary sight - maybe less than a dozen. Of course I have no specific data, but we do know that the vast majority of tanks were lost chiefly to artillery, to mines as a distant second, then to anti-tank weapons (RPG, missiles, drones), and only very few in duel situations (and there, maybe surprisingly, most were KO'd by HE-frag rounds).

 

Western tanks have been tailored to maximum advantage in a duel situation. It was envisioned as the primary threat between the mid 1960s and mid 1980s when they were all designed. Arguably, as it turns out, that's the least of your worries in contemporary combat.

[Captain_Colossus]

a relatively new bradley video likely from from ukraine's counter-offensive last year in zaporozhye

 

 

 

 

 

[iamfritz]

Does anyone remember that footage from about a year ago of some (Russian/Ukrainian) IFV rolling up behind some (Ukrainian/Russian) T-72 variant and hammering its engine vents with its 30-40 mm until it caught fire? It was drone footage (IIRC) with IFV at screen bottom and tank up above...?

[Stuart666]

21 hours ago, iamfritz said:

Does anyone remember that footage from about a year ago of some (Russian/Ukrainian) IFV rolling up behind some (Ukrainian/Russian) T-72 variant and hammering its engine vents with its 30-40 mm until it caught fire? It was drone footage (IIRC) with IFV at screen bottom and tank up above...?

That was an Asov Btr 4 in Mariupol, iirc.

[iamfritz]

On 2/20/2024 at 12:55 AM, Stuart666 said:

That was an Asov Btr 4 in Mariupol, iirc.

Thanks for the link- meets my description exactly but not the clip I'm looking for.
The one I'm thinking of was from outside, a drone looking down. The tank is a block or two in the background looking away as the IFV, below/closer to the drone, pulls right from behind a building and hammers the tank in the exhaust until it flames out.

[nwbry]

On 2/21/2024 at 9:04 PM, iamfritz said:

Thanks for the link- meets my description exactly but not the clip I'm looking for.
The one I'm thinking of was from outside, a drone looking down. The tank is a block or two in the background looking away as the IFV, below/closer to the drone, pulls right from behind a building and hammers the tank in the exhaust until it flames out.

 

This one got somewhat famous when it was first released, but you can't see the BTR.

This one fits the description more closely, but doesn't take place in a city/suburb.

 

[iamfritz]

On 2/25/2024 at 11:11 AM, nwbry said:

 

This one got somewhat famous when it was first released, but you can't see the BTR.

This one fits the description more closely, but doesn't take place in a city/suburb.

 

That first one is so close but that's not it. I'm looking for it too.
The one I'm remembering was like that, but a little closer/zoomed in. It showed only one tank toward the top of the screen, like that one, and the IFV, bottom of screen, filmed from a drone, pull rightward onto the road the tank is on, and starts pounding its rear grill with 30 or 40mm rounds. The engine lights up and the tank starts burning.