Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
May 31, 2006
Image Size
1.0 MB
Resolution
1536×1346
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
12,641 (1 today)
Favourites
45 (who?)
Comments
24
Downloads
412

Camera Data

Make
PENTAX Corporation
Model
PENTAX Optio 50
Shutter Speed
3755/1000000 second
Aperture
F/3.0
Focal Length
7 mm
ISO Speed
50
Date Taken
Jan 8, 2006, 3:30:15 PM
×
M2 Bradley IFV by DarkWizard83 M2 Bradley IFV by DarkWizard83
The Bradley was first designed in the 1960s as replacement for the M113 APC, and as a counter to the newly developed Soviet BMP-1, the world's first infantry fighting vehicle. Like the BMP, the M2 was equipped with a heavy main gun - in this case a rapid-firing chaingun capable of destroying or at the very least crippling tanks - as well as a twin TOW anti-tank missile launcher. It also provided firing ports for the six infantrymen carried inside, and is protected by significant amounts of armor for an armored personnel carrier - yet has no problem keeping pace with the M1 Abrams battle tank. Since its introduction in 1981, the Bradley has spawned a number of variants, including the M3 Cavalry fighting vehicle, M6 Linebacker SAM system, and has served as the chassis for the MLRS rocket launcher.

However, despite its current success, the M2 suffered some significant development problems. Design of the machine was incredibly slow and extrodinarily expensive, and the early prototypes were plagued with numerous mechanical and safety problems - a series of mishaps and subsequent infighting that has been chronicled in Lt. Col. James Burton's book The Pentagon Wars, which later became a TV movie starring Kelsey Grammer. While the additionof the chaingun and TOW launcher gave the Bradley greater firepower and thus greater mission flexibility, it severely curtailed the number of troops that could be carried. And in the first Gulf War, the vehicle's profile was so similar to the BMPs it was meant to challenge that nearly twenty were lost to friendly fire.

Today, operations in Iraq have demonstrated that the M2 is still vulnerable to mobility attacks by RPGs and roadside bombs. However, crew and passenger casualties have extremely light, a testament to the Bradley's armor protection.

M2 Bradley IFV Vehicle Stats:
Type: Infantry fighting vehicle
Manufacturer: United Defense LP
First deployed: 1981

Crew: 3 + 6 passengers
Length: 6.55 m
Width: 3.61 m
Height: 2.98 m
Weight: 25 tons

Armor: Classified
Armament, primary: 1 x 25mm Bushmaster M242 chain gun
Armament, secondary: 1 x 7.62mm FN-Browning M240 machinegun, 2 x Hughes BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile launcher
Ammo stowage, primary: 900 rounds
Ammo stowage, secondary: 2,200 rounds 7.62mm, 7 TOW missiles

Powerplant: Cummins VTA-903T 500hp turbocharged 8-cylinder water-cooled diesel engine
Max speed: 66 km/h
Max range: 483km

Operators: Saudi Arabia and USA
Add a Comment:
 
:iconbloodravens1:
BloodRavens1 Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2014
i call that apc
Reply
:iconhardscout70:
hardscout70 Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2012
I was a 24th Inf. Div. Cav Scout in Desert Storm. We were the first to actually battle test the Bradley; she proved her worth for sure. As for the drowning reports, there are crew drills designed to save the crew in case of such a situation; however, they do not always work the way we want them to. It is not a design flaw by any means. After Desert Storm, a group of civilians interviewed us to determine if we could recommend any structural changes. The one most mentioned was the gunner's hatch. All in all, the Bradley was an experience I will not forget. I cussed it and loved it at the same time. She kept me alive and that is more than I can ask for. hlc
Reply
:iconmarksynthesis:
MarkSYNTHESIS Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2009
'The Pentagon Wars' is a fun, hilarious movie (if not entirely accurate, I'm sure).

Very good photograph anyway. Other than the fact that I think it was intended as a counter to the BMP-2 rather than the BMP-1 (they both have similar main guns), great work!
Reply
:icondogzovwar81:
DOGZOVWAR81 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2009  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I was a M2A2 ODS gunner for 4 years (one in the sandbox) and I have to say it is a fine machine, and it sure beat the hell out of doing the job on foot!
Reply
:iconmilitarybarraks:
militarybarraks Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2008
can i have one :ashamed:
Reply
:iconxdsl:
xDSL Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2008
For what are this two black stripes on the side? These stripes are also on an Abrams tank sometimes. I mean these arrow stripes.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner May 31, 2006
Heh, the Bradley has come a long way since that look. I don't believe we even use this particular model type anymore.
Reply
:iconsablelieger:
Sablelieger Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2006
Yep, even the gun ports are covered, which is a modification done after the Army deemed the gun ports/M231 Port Guns as uneccesary.

I remember seeing those models back in 1992, when I first joined the US Army (24th ID (M))
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2006
Damn, 24th Mechanized? Dude, I had a Drill in 98 who was in that unit in Desert Storm. Course by that time the unit was shut down. And then they brought it back in like...2000 or something. Typical Army.

Anyways, I wonder if they are regretting not having gun ports now in Iraq.
Reply
:iconwisker:
Wisker Featured By Owner May 31, 2006
Mechanised infantry. What my country will never have. =(
Bradleys are fucking cool.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner May 31, 2006
They could be better. But they do well enough. :)
Reply
:iconwisker:
Wisker Featured By Owner May 31, 2006
Yeah I heard about one flipping in Iraq in some water and drowning the crew. Armored vechiles are dangerous as. Most of the causalties in the NZ army are from crashes and Unimogs flipping.
But Bradelys are much better than BMPs and any other countries IFVs.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner May 31, 2006
I wouldn't go THAT far lol. Accidents will happen no matter where you go, but to say the Bradley is better than any other IFV out there is a bit of a stretch. First you have to determine what makes it 'better.' What's being used for comparision?

It's an issue when it comes to trying to rate armored vehicles with each other. Top 10 lists are kinda tricky to create for them.
Reply
:icondarkwizard83:
DarkWizard83 Featured By Owner May 31, 2006
I think I have to agree with Wisker - from combat record, the M2 at the very least appears to be the best IFV. True, Armerican M2s have taken their share of beatings in Iraq, but nowhere near the kinds of beatings Russian BMPs and BMDs have taken in Afghanistan or Chechnya.

True, they've sacrificed crew space to turn what's otherwise a straightforward APC into a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none kind of vehicle, and it's probably one of the most expensive IFVs around. But what's the cost of a vehicle if it keeps the soldiers it's carrying alive?

I can imagine the British Warrior or the German Marder being fair competition against the Bradley, to certain extent vehicles like the Japanese Type 89 of Italian Darado being comparable, but those haven't seen combat yet. But the BMP? Sorry, but not a chance.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006
As I told Wisker, you're comparing two pretty different beasts. Granted, they're both AFVs, but the BMP and BMD are designs from....definately the 60s (probably begun the design work in the mid-late 50's I bet), versus the Bradley which is a relatively new design in comparision. It just depends on what exactly are you looking to compare. Their service time? Firepower, speed, armor, weight, power, troop capacity, variants, etc? Flexibility? Combat records?

It's a major reason why trying to determine what vehicle is the best in the world is so difficult (especially tanks). There's a lot of good vehicles out there, but some haven't ever fired their guns in anger, while others have been put to use all over the place and sometimes misused. Or they've only served in one location. Isreali Merkava for instance.

I definately agree that the Bradley has done far better compared to the BMP and BMD (the latter being airborne drop capable and therefore light to begin with) in terms of the combat record. But is that due tot he vehicle itself, or how it was used? Sticky wicket, wot.

BTW, are you saying the Warrior and Marder haven't seen combat yet?
Reply
:icondarkwizard83:
DarkWizard83 Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006
No, I was sayiing the Darado and Type 89 hadn't seen combat yet.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006
That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure. :)
Reply
:iconwisker:
Wisker Featured By Owner May 31, 2006
Yeah, but I'd say the Bradely is better because.
A. Its has the best combat record.
B. TOW is more accurate than the BMP's AT-10 Stabber.
C. I can't think of many other IFVs except for the german Marder. :confused:
D.Crew Survivability is higher than the BMP2. You don't need to be a midget to fit in the vechile.
I dunno can you think of a better AFV?
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006
Comparing a BMP (from 1-3) to a Bradley is going to be an bit unfair. Though I'd rate the BMP-3 a little better, it does have a larger caliber main gun now.

But you have to keep in mind, one is relatively new versus a machine that's been upgraded since...oooh I believe the 60's. There's only so much upgrading you can do on an old design. Combat record wise I agree, the Bradley has done better. But you can only fit a squad in it versus 7-8 men in a BMP. So it depends on what you want to get out of it.

As for a better AFV, again, it just depends on what you want to get out of it. There's quite a few different designs out there after all. Are you looking to carry more troops? Have more firepower? Better armor? Service life? Or just comparing combat records? There's a few AFVs out there that haven't been in combat (that we know of anyways). I'll look through my Janes books here, but I kinda need to know what specifically you're looking to compare.
Reply
:iconwisker:
Wisker Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006
Well the purpose of the Bradely and BMP is to get infantry from A to B and support them at B right?
How good their respective anti tank weapons are would be important then. Rate of fire and penetration of the main gun would be important for making sure the other side had to keep their heads down while the friendly infantry deployed. Ability to keep up with the tanks. Armor thickness. Crew protection. Wouldn't want something as lightly armored as an LAAV.

If I was the Russians I'd go for lower cost, service life and passanger capacity. The cost is important cause I'd want it to be a competitive export and Russia is poor. Service life would be important because Russia can't really afford to replace them. Passanger capacity because Russians work in bigger units. It wouldn't have to be extremely capable on a single unit level because of the operating in bigger units thing.

Hey, but your the one with experience in armored vechiles. I'm only an enthusist at this stage. The closest I've come is driving an assualt boat.(I'd much rather be on the land)
I bow to your greater knowledge.
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006
Well...the Bradley is kinda multipurpose. And it's not exactly REALLY good at any one job. It does well enough, which has allowed it to get by it seems. The BMP is definately an APC with a gun and anti-tank missle on it. You really don't want to go head-to-head with tanks if you can avoid it. You haven't the armor or the firepower, even with the Bradley's TOW system. That's there more to allow the Bradley to hit and run like the wind afterwards lol. Packs a punch, but still don't want to stick around for that tanks buddies.

I must say, as an enthusiast, you have a pretty good grasp of things. Russia is big on the exporting of vehicles deal. See: T-72 and T-90 as examples. I myself never served on a Bradley. I've looked it over, talked with the guys who use it, but I don't care much for the machine myself. Has a pretty tall profile, makes it stand out. It's cramped as hell, especially for the driver. The Abrams isn't exactly roomy, but compared to a Bradley it is.

BTW, the LAAV is being replaced, sometime this year I believe.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: