BMP M2 Bradley: how dangerous the Pentagon handed over to Ukraine

At the end of January this year, it became known that the United States plans to transfer 60 units of its Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to Kyiv. In mid-February, it was reported that these machines were already in the German port of Bremerhaven.

Based on the declared amount of transferred equipment and photographs of its loading, some experts concluded that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will receive a 2 modification of the M2A1993-ODS.

One of the main differences between this version and its predecessors is the presence of the FBCB2 combat information and control system, which allows the exchange of intelligence information with satellites and other combat units equipped with similar devices.

It should be noted right away that the presence of this system in the Bradley M2A2-ODS for soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is both an advantage and a disadvantage. The latter lies in the difficulty of mastering work with new equipment.

Regarding the characteristics, they are superior to the American car in some ways, and in some ways inferior to our BMP-3.

In particular, Bradley's armor is better. The machine is protected according to the “steel-aluminum-kevlar” scheme, and the forehead, sides and turret are protected by additional steel screens 30-32 mm thick. In addition, it is possible to install additional blocks of dynamic protection. Such armor withstands hits from a 30-mm cannon without any problems and even often from ATGMs (depending on the distance of the shot).

The main armament of the Bradley M2A2-ODS is represented by the 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon, which is quite "ugly" against the 30mm 2A72 and 100mm 2A70 of the BMP-3.

At the same time, formidable weapons Bradley has a launcher with anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) BGM-71D TOW, which are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 3 km.

It is worth noting that the previous version of the Bradley M2A2, which participated in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, was first used in conjunction with a tank Abrams. At the same time, she destroyed more Iraqi T-72s than the main American tank, precisely due to the presence of the BGM-71D TOW ATGM.

Finally, in addition to a rifled automatic cannon and an anti-tank system, the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle is equipped with a 7,62 mm M240C machine gun.

Regarding the mass, the Bradley M2A2-ODS is much heavier than the BMP-3: 27,6 tons versus 18,7 tons. At the same time, the engine of the American car is weaker than ours: 21,7 hp. per ton versus 26,7 hp per ton, respectively. As a result, the Bradley is inferior to the BMP-3 and in speed - 56 km / h versus 72 km / h.

Finally, it doesn’t matter with the American BMP and with buoyancy. The car is heavily submerged under water, which threatens it with big problems in case of a strong current.

Meanwhile, the American infantry fighting vehicle should not be underestimated. Although they were transferred a little, they are still capable of delivering trouble on the battlefield.

Comments

[tatarin1972]

The fight will show who is higher on the wall pissing.

[Glagol1]

This is a dangerous and quite modern weapon. However, given the experience of different wars, it is possible to fight. Explore weaknesses. Yes, the birds are very formidable, but the 25 mm gun is, well, rather weak. Although you need to look at selective nutrition and the distance of application. In general, there is little pleasant, but you can fight!

[cold wind]

Quote: Glagol1

25 mm gun, well, rather weak.

This is so funny) this 25 mm cannon will flash the BMP-3 in the forehead with sub-calibers from 1,5-2 km. A similar distance BMP-3 can only remove the tracks and damage the attachments at Bradley.

[tatarin1972]

100mm can only remove tracks? Especially "Kitolovom"?

[Anna E]

Caterpillars, along with half of the hull.

[Airborne Major]

The BMP-3 is armed with the 9K116-3 "Fable" Complex (8 missiles), which can be used at a distance of 100 to 5500 meters. The flight time to the target at the maximum distance is 13,5 seconds. The guided missiles of the complex have either a cumulative or tandem cumulative warhead. Guidance is carried out by a laser beam. Rocket launch through the gun barrel. So there is something to meet Bradley with a head start in our direction of 2,5 km.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from cold wind

A similar distance BMP-3 can only remove the tracks and damage the attachments at Bradley.

A 100mm land mine from any distance (if only it flew) for Bradley will not go unnoticed. Yes, and 30 mm caliber should not be discounted. Now the troops have received a cartridge with a BR-11 projectile (caliber 30mm), which is able to penetrate 60mm of homogeneous steel.

[Materialist]

The effectiveness of crowbars against tanks, in particular, post-/Soviet ones, lies in the defeat of BC, but in the case of this rather large hollow "shed", the damage from 125-mm cumulatives will be incomparably greater, given that contact-1 was not hung on it and most likely will not hang
All of the above is assumed to be as rare as in the case that 2A42 / 72 will work according to Yuradli, most often such a machine will meet with anti-tank systems, LNG, RPGs, all of them are ultimatums for her and her kind in any projection

[Repellent]

Quote from cold wind

will flash the BMP-3 in the forehead from 1,5-2 km ... The BMP-3 can only remove the tracks and damage the attachments at Bradley

Dude, go play HERE. There, tanks are at war with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles - with infantry fighting vehicles ... everything you want

[KCA]

Interestingly, the girls are dancing, the 25mm blows the BMP-3 into the trash, and the 100mm BMP-30 cannon paired with the 3mm cannon is nothing? Drink haloperidol and don't rave, a sub-caliber projectile for 25mm, is it 14.5mm? So the queue from the KPVT is armor-piercing / armor-piercing / explosive, I loaded it like that, it will tear the ravings into pieces of scrap metal

[Anna E]

And what's the use of the motionless Bradley, besides "blind and deaf"? The destruction of equipment did not succeed, it is enough to disable it. This is still being brought to Poland, while what is ground is brought from the German warehouse ... A month, if at the Stakhanov pace, and if from 8 to 17, with lunch, days off and sick days - all two. So these "funny" damages are not so "funny" after all. Using the technology is still impossible.

[Alexey Lantukh]

Who tried it and where? Especially after Syria, armor protection was strengthened. In addition, the speed of the projectile from 2 and one km is significantly different.

[Slon1978]

Both 25 mm for the BMP Bradley, and 30 mm for the BMP-2 and 3 are quite enough for mutual destruction from real combat distances. Just like tanks, IFVs don't often see each other in combat. The main problem with the BMP Bradley is its relatively heavy armor. Soviet / Russian BTR-80/82 and BMP-2/3 are pierced and set on fire by fragments from close explosions of 122-152 mm and 120 mm artillery shells, then a direct hit by a shell or mine, or the use of ATGMs is required to destroy the Bradley BMP. And this makes the BMP Bradley a more difficult target to destroy. The offensive, attacking potential of the BMP Bradley is noticeably inferior to the BMP-3 due to its heavier weight and low speed (you still have to get to the battlefield, not get stuck or break) and weaker weapons.

[KCA]

The treshka has two guns, 30 and 100mm, 25 and 30mm there is a big difference, but you can gasp out of 100mm, or you can also launch the Arkan PTR from the barrel, here the abrashka can catch, with its speed the BMP-3 will be able to board or into fly out the stern, the speed of rotation of the tower at the abrashka is such that you can get around on foot with an RPG, faster the commander with a pistol will crawl out of the tower

[Anna E]

Can a forty-five projectile from the time of V.O.V. survive? And if something bigger, then probably "there will go shreds along the back streets"? In short, it has its limit. Not the Death Star from Star Wars.

[invisible_man]

Such armor withstands hits from a 30-mm cannon without any problems and even often from ATGMs (depending on the distance of the shot).

For a cumulative ATGM, the firing distance is very important, yes.

[stels_07]

And if a sub-caliber ptur? Text td tp

[Roman Efremov]

I hope you were joking. And the author of this text, it seems, does not really understand what he is writing about.

[invisible_man]

I am sure that the author of the text had in mind only a gun, but could not in "flies separately, cutlets separately."

[Bingo]

Quote: Roman Efremov

I hope you were joking.

Tight on the site with humor. Below, in plain text - "text for TP." What is TP?

[invisible_man]

I could explain, but the moderator will slap a warning. And I already have three

[Bingo]

Quote from invisible_man

For a cumulative ATGM, the firing distance is very important, yes.

He was also slightly limp with delight))) In general, they famously podeldyknuli about the sub-caliber ATGM below)))

[invisible_man]

famously chirped

Only they didn’t understand his sarcasm - again they stuck minuses.

[Zoer]

Most annoying is the presence of the CIUS and communication with the satellite. For a quick breakthrough, a very serious help. On the other hand, if ours manage to silence, break this connection in the midst of a counteroffensive, then the dill will have serious problems, if not a complete defeat.

[Pavel57]

It is interesting to see a graph of the dependence of the penetration of ATGM armor on the distance of the shot.

[Anna E]

And without it, it is clear that the shorter the distance, the greater the penetration

[Horon]

the shorter the distance, the greater the penetration

For cumulative, this condition does not apply. Doesn't work at all. The armor penetration of the cumulative ammunition will be the same at 100 meters, that at 5 kilometers. The main thing is to get in. But for an ordinary armor-piercing one, the distance matters. The author mixed everything together.

[Beck69]

This is about scrap, and the godfather doesn’t care, the main thing is to get there.

[novel66]

graph of the dependence of the penetration of ATGM armor on the distance of the shot.

Yes, straight

[Santa Fe]

Bradley M2A2 is 8 tons heavier than the BMP-3 and almost twice as heavy as the BMP-1/2

Bradley has no frills in terms of heavy weapons, like twin 100 mm and 30 mm BMP-3 guns

Small-caliber 25 mm autocannon and ATGM Tou (more on that below)

Weight difference, 8 tons - all these are extra centimeters of armor. Bradley will survive most situations that are fatal for the BMP-3. An example is close gaps of 152 mm within a radius of several tens of meters, Bradley's side protection withstands hits on the side of 12,7. Many still believe that this is quite a common and unremarkable result.

In fact, protection in all projections from 12,7 is a high result for infantry transport and combat vehicles, for example, such a level of protection is simply unattainable for Soviet-style infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers

The side of the BMP-3 is protected by a 43 mm ABT-102 alloy sheet, which, at an angle of about 70 degrees, gives the equivalent of ~ 21 mm of BT 70-Sh steel armor. This solution provides effective protection of the BMP-3 in a frontal attack, when fired from heading angles. But when hit at any other angle, the protection loses its properties.

As for equipping the Bradley TOW ATGM, this is an old, but even more dangerous anti-tank system than a manual Javelin, due to twice the mass of its missiles

Comparison of the quality of BMP-1/2/3 sights and Bradley M2A2 ODS, there’s not even anything to talk about

The quality and combat value of the BMP Bradley indicates a simple fact, during the years of the Cold War, 6000 units were produced. At the same time, as of 1994, the Russian ground forces had 25 BMP-1 and BMP-2 units. About ten thousand more of these infantry fighting vehicles ended up in the countries of near and far abroad.

Bradley is a machine of a different class; the Russian Armed Forces have never had its analogues. In a combat situation, one Bradley is worth several BMP-1/2/3

[Anna E]

Hm... Such "delicious" advertizing. You probably need to buy this prodigy, go to work. Probably only KAMAZ is dangerous on board. The armor will hold up, but what will the contents of the armor be like? And so a normal car for the city. Another nuance - you need to enroll in courses for tractor drivers. In short, I call Max Shelkov and together we go to buy this miracle of the Amer defense industry. And, yes, we buy demilitarized, without weapons. It is not necessary, traffic jams can be stuffed anyway. Gas in the Palace and drove!

[Santa Fe]

The armor will hold up, but what will the contents of the armor be like?

The answer is in the question itself.

If the armor survived the hit, then it served its purpose.

You probably need to buy this prodigy, go to work

You must have confused with Bentley

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Santa Fe

The difference in mass, 8 tons - all these are extra centimeters of armor. Bradley will survive most situations that are fatal for the BMP-3. An example is close gaps of 152 mm within a radius of several tens of meters, Bradley's side protection withstands hits on the side of 12,7. Many still believe that this is quite a common and unremarkable result.

Firstly, "Bradley" is much higher, which means that a larger volume had to be booked.
Secondly, BMP-3s with additional armor and anti-cumulative grilles are now going to Ukraine.

[cold wind]

Quote: Santa Fe

Bradley is a machine of a different class; the Russian Armed Forces have never had its analogues. In a combat situation, one Bradley is worth several BMP-1/2/3

Absolutely right. Cars of different classes. Bradley is a modern infantry fighting vehicle. BMP-3 - self-propelled gun, with a place for landing on the armor. BMP-1/2 are museum exhibits, the fact that they are in service can only be explained by deliberate sabotage.

[Bingo]

Quote from cold wind

Bradley is a modern infantry fighting vehicle.

It’s nonsense, if only because since the 90s everyone has been trying to replace mattresses, but because of the eternal cuts, production competitions are won by Raytheon, who has never produced BMPs, so they ride on the ancient asylum and swear it soon for 40 years. The last one was released 30+ years ago.
The training manual is a good thing, it only rolls exclusively for the headless, and they are all collected in one place, in cisso

[Arigin]

Modern, they are modern, but the anti-lanceolate grille still needs to be welded. And also to read, where are their mothers? The film is not offered.

[Airborne Major]

Have you been in such fights? Bradley still needs to get within effective fire range. The oncoming battle of armor is extremely rare today. And if Ukrov's tanks are burning with torches, why do you think that the much weaker Bradley will show himself differently? Remember Northern Syria, Yemen ... There, heavy Western equipment burned with a bang even from simple RPGs. In addition to the performance characteristics of equipment, there is also the concept of battle tactics and the skill of the crews. Of course, you don’t need to deal with hats, but you shouldn’t build an unsurpassed miracle out of Bradley, it will burn, like everything else from the ukroreich.

[Szerg]

I agree with almost everything. But I still think a pair of BMP3s will be more effective than one Bradley. Especially if it is a modernized BMP3, steel plates (about 1 cm thick) and gratings are hung on it. And for the price, I think they will be equal, 2 BMP3 and 1 Bradley. (Of course, this indicator is conditional, because there are a lot of them in the USA, they themselves are rich, and Ukraine gets it for free. But if you look as if from a distance, for example, from the position of a third party who wants to buy BMPs, then this indicator will be important)

[TermNachTer]

And armor-piercing 14,5 - mm. holding? difference in 2 - mm. considerable. And 14.5 mm. there is still enough, but there are already 20 mm.

[Victory Day]

Bradley was created for wars against a weaker enemy, in confidence to destroy him at a distance, and if not detected, the armor had to withstand the impact of old ammunition, the main drawback is slowness, which, if detected, will be fatal.

[huggi]

Yes, against such a weak one as a tank avalanche of the USSR rushing to the English Channel. You didn’t confuse Bradley with mraps?

[Szerg]

Bradley has good electronics and optics. Probably not the latest modification will be transferred to Ukraine, but still, presumably, they will be better than our BMPs. For example, I consider a good thermal imager to be one of the main threats. In addition, they say that she has an accurate gun. So the car is not very bad. True, if you use it, how often it is used in Ukraine, as can be seen from many videos, i.e. they just shoot in the direction of the enemy, to suppress - then the 25 mm gun is still too small, worse than 30 mm. Bradley is more suitable for identifying specific targets and destroying them.

The author probably confused ATGMs with RPGs. Here, yes, there is a chance that the RPG will withstand, especially if gratings are installed.

[Knell wardenheart]

Comparison of the blunt performance characteristics of the Bradley products with the BMP-3 is not entirely correct, because these products will not choke wall-to-wall in 99% of cases. It is precisely as part of the concept of an offensive inside the network centric, which NATO is trying to build from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, that the Bradley is a very unpleasant product.
If you look stupidly at the performance characteristics, then the Soviet armored forces at the beginning of the war had to grind the German armored ones, because they were mostly equivalent or superior. But the devil was in the details - in other means of the Germans, in management, communications, planning. Because our forces had minuses of various kinds.

What's the point of 100 mm. guns, if there is no normally organized target designation and awareness of what is happening for it? And vice versa - there may be sense from a less serious weapon, and from a lower speed of movement - if this is used in planning and well-organized battle management.
Less and less muscles are fighting, and more and more brains ..

[Victory Day]

I agree that it is pointless to consider one combat vehicle without a complex of weapons around, means of support, guidance, maintenance of the tactics of using all types of weapons, which are now given to the Ukrainian wars, for the most part, pieces of different places of good equipment, but these pieces are not a whole, they do not support a certain concept, although with the advent of UAVs and satellite reconnaissance, everyone's concepts have changed. But it's still Trishkin's caftan.

[AlexKruglov1976]

Aluminum foil armor?
I need to add some more powdered sugar!

[Arbeiternegast]

Buoyancy is crazy? Hmm ... I'm not "catching up" with something, sorry!

[Materialist]

Everyone is so busy experiencing the excitement of comparing similar vehicles, forgetting that all the most massive means of destroying armored vehicles are ultimatums for her, even contact-1 will not save her, because even if she doesn’t break through the armored hull, even a weakened cumulative jet will pierce the car

[Anatoly Proskurin]

The author got some kind of unintelligible, artistic text ... And what effect does the distance to the target have on the armor penetration of the ATGM cummul? Yes, and Bradley’s weight, it seems, is more .... And where does the idiocy of the maximum speed parameter come into play? Does it matter in battle? And the fact that the infantry kirdyk from the small-scale caliber, which makes a clearing in the forest and turns people into minced meat even in a trench behind a parapet? I'm already silent about the upcoming ones! Even a tank, in this case, is not as dangerous to infantry as this thresher !!! The walls of the houses do not help, and the queue at the window of any floor kills Everyone behind the opening with ricochets and fragments! Editor, why are you showing your incompetence and publishing banality, which has been known to everyone for a VERY LONG time. This is not an article. Do you have smarter articles? I'm asking you the editor.
Bradley's topic is not disclosed. The article is uninformative. Conclusions are subjective. Editor, you 2 for the meaning of becoming and 3 for the content! You editor! The author, what to take from him, wrote as best he could, but you missed IT!

[Wildcat]

At the end of January this year, it became known that the United States plans to transfer 60 units of its Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to Kyiv.

From the first lines it is not clear how you can be so wrong.
It would seem, climb into Wiki - 109 pcs. Climb into the "Pentagon leaks" - 99 pcs.
The correct number is 109, read two Biden Presidential Orders 50 (plus "500 TOW anti-tank missiles and 250,000 rounds of 25mm ammunition") and 59 (plus "590 TOW anti-tank missiles and 295,000 rounds of 25mm ammunition") ).

Finally, it doesn’t matter with the American BMP and with buoyancy. The car is heavily submerged under water, which threatens it with big problems in case of a strong current.

These are the first versions of Bradley, under certain circumstances, had to swim. But the US Army doesn't really care about swimming (let Marine Corps swim, "he's got paws" - AAV-7). and in all subsequent modifications, buoyancy was "exchanged" for security. That is, armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles are affected by the Bradley cannon, and Bradley, with rare exceptions, is not affected by cannons / KPVT from armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles (there was one supposed hit from a 73 mm BMP1 in Iraq (the shooter was killed) and, possibly, a 100 mm BMP3 ATGM will also be dangerous.
In general, Bradley needs the same thing as a tank - ATGMs and 100/115/125 mm. a gun.

... the presence of the FBCB2 combat information and control system, which allows you to exchange intelligence information with satellites and other combat units equipped with similar devices. It should be noted right away that the presence of this system in the Bradley M2A2-ODS for soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is both an advantage and a disadvantage. The latter lies in the difficulty of mastering work with new equipment.

This is great, bravo to the author! Knowing where one's own and where the enemy is is a great difficulty.

Bradley's main armament

The main armament at Bradley uses sights, which, according to the assurances of the operators, in the SMU and at night allow you to determine which of the infantrymen around has a runny nose. And weapons at night and in SMU can be used no less effectively than during the day.
The main armament of Bradley was created on the basis that Tou will work on tanks, and 25 mm - on armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles / BRDM / etc. And to date, Bradley's opponents have not changed much.

they were transferred and a little, but they are still capable of delivering trouble on the battlefield

With Desert Storm, the Bradleys are busy delivering trouble.
Judging by open sources, Bradley will be part of the "new" brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where only technicians "partners from NATO" have given more than a thousand units. IMHO, in the "Pentagon leaks", from which such a quantity is obtained, there are incomprehensible omissions, for example, 250 М1117 are not visible anywhere, so in reality there will be more equipment.
And a very good question: how are the new brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine preparing to meet.

Now Bradley will be in one unit of the Armed Forces of Ukraine - 47 brigade, judging by the "Pentagon leaks." This is strange, purely theoretically, Bradley was given three battalions by the standards of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and IMHO, they will still be "handed out" to different brigades battalion by battalion. Although, perhaps, for reasons of logistics / technical support, they will still be kept in the same brigade.

[qwert]

So, when comparing domestic and American technology, it is necessary to take into account several nuances. The first is armor penetration and armor durability. In the USA they say that at such a distance a projectile pierces so many mm, if during the tests it pierced the armor in 5 cases out of 10. We have a criterion of 9 out of 10. Next. For the Americans, penetration is counted even if the projectile is stuck in the armor, but the tip of the projectile head comes out from the back. Ours count only through holes. Secondly, in the USA, homogeneous armor plates are used for testing; we have armor platinum made of steel of increased hardness. What does it mean?
This means that our 45mm in terms of armor resistance serve as the equivalent of 36 mm US plates. Now you can recalculate the armor penetration of 25 mm American and 30 mm of our guns and there will be no surprise. The same with armor resistance. Their correspondence to so many mm of homogeneous armor will also be lower. In the ability to sell and advertise, we are very far from the USA)

[qwert]

In pursuit. Remember the tests of the BMP-1 in the USA, when during training battles it won the battle against the M-4 in 60 cases? How did the Americans explain it? The first is the presence of a weapon capable of guaranteed penetration of the M 60 and .... Small size with high mobility of the BMP. Here are the latest indicators of the BMP-3 in comparison with Bradley, too.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

What's the point of 100 mm. guns, if there is no normally organized target designation and awareness of what is happening for it? And vice versa - there may be sense from a less serious weapon, and from a lower speed of movement - if this is used in planning and well-organized battle management.

Sense - will be. When it comes to a direct confrontation on the battlefield, which is very likely.
If this happens, there will no longer be any need for troubles with target designation and awareness - the opponents will fight at short distances, in the line of sight of each other.
And it is the power of weapons, mobility, armor protection, training and tactical skills of the crews that will matter.

[Illanatol]

Quote from Huggie

Yes, against such a weak one as a tank avalanche of the USSR rushing to the English Channel.

But this was not the only and not the most important means of countering "USSR tank avalanches." And it is not a fact that these avalanches would not have reached the English Channel. Neither prove nor disprove...

[Illanatol]

Quote: Santa Fe

Bradley M2A2 is 8 tons heavier than the BMP-3 and almost twice as heavy as the BMP-1/2

Bradley has no frills in terms of heavy weapons, like twin 100 mm and 30 mm BMP-3 guns

Small-caliber 25 mm autocannon and ATGM Tou (more on that below)

The difference in mass, 8 tons - all these are extra centimeters of armor. Bradley will survive most situations that are fatal for the BMP-3. An example is close gaps of 152 mm within a radius of several tens of meters, Bradley's side protection withstands hits on the side of 12,7. Many still believe that this is quite a common and unremarkable result.

In fact, protection in all projections from 12,7 is a high result for infantry transport and combat vehicles, for example, such a level of protection is simply unattainable for Soviet-style infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers

And the dimensions? Did you take this into account?
The larger (and taller) the combat vehicle, the easier it is to hit it. Less mobility, more difficult camouflage and shelter in the folds of the terrain.

The board can withstand 12.7 mm? And what? I am aware that heavy machine guns were not included in the standard armament of the SA motorized rifle department (and they are not included now), but RPGs were and are.
And a shot from an RPG - Bradley's armor is very tough. So this bonus is going down the drain.

No heavy weapons? This is a minus, in fact, the 100 mm caliber allows you to solve many problems, including in urban combat.

[BorzRio]

The BMP-3 is good because it is lower in silhouette, more mobile and more compact. A 100 mm gun is also not a bad argument. Defense is weak. But there are very few of them, they are in the main airborne forces. And you should not expect a direct collision with Bradley. Our main hard workers are the BMP-1 and 2. Here they have more chances to meet with the American machine. And indeed, ATGMs and artillery are now the gods of war.

[Losyara]

The iron of which only countries did not burn in those parts. And this one will be burned. Such is their fate.

[Press]

Whatever you say, but these 60 pieces + 60 pieces of Marders will bring a lot of trouble to our guys. It would be nice to beat them on the way to the front line.

[vfrcbv1965-2011]

The established advantage in communications and satellites, if ours on this sector of the front, somehow do not eliminate this "eternal" consequence of decisions from the 90s, then I'm afraid a very large score will not be in our favor when meeting these nonsense.

[blackGRAIL]

Such armor withstands hits from a 30-mm cannon without any problems. and even often from ATGMs (depending on the distance of the shot).

The ATGM uses a cumulative warhead, the penetration of which does not depend on the distance of the shot. At all.