Military Review

Another American disgrace: BMP M-2 "Bradley" in Saudi Arabia in battles burn like matches

231
Another American disgrace: BMP M-2 "Bradley" in Saudi Arabia in battles burn like matches



Americans still rate their BMD M-2 "Bradley" as the best in the world. In fact, the opinions of various military countries are fundamentally at odds with what overseas propaganda is trying to impress. In fact, in the 35 years of being in service, despite all the attempts of the Pentagon, it was not possible to sell this fighting machine to one of its allies. She dared to buy only in Saudi Arabia. And then - as a sign of gratitude for the protection of the kingdom against the alleged invasion of Saddam Hussein's troops.







During the fighting in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991, the US Army lost two dozen Bradley. The American crews tried to hit the enemy armored vehicles from ATGM TOU at the maximum possible range, but when, for various reasons, the M-2 were too close to the enemy, they began to suffer losses not only from tanks T-55 or BMP-1, but even from heavy machine guns DShK. True, it is still claimed that most of the losses occurred due to the so-called "friendly fire".

If we talk about the loss of the BMP M-2 during the aggression in Iraq in 2003, the data here is different. It was reported that in two years the Americans lost there from 50 to 150 of such machines. In any case, faced with the fact that "Bradley" is absolutely not adapted to the conditions of the war with the guerrillas, the command of the occupying troops was forced to reduce the use of BMP data to a minimum. And emphasis was placed on the use of explosion-proof armored vehicles.





It was mentioned above that Saudi Arabia was the only country that purchased these BMPs. A total of about Bradley 400 was acquired. Last year, the royal M2 took part in the battles. And again, not entirely successful. In a relatively short period, 5 machines were destroyed. In this case, the Saudi BMP after the defeat of anti-tank funds lit up like a match. According to military experts, in fact, the loss of the Saudis in the BMP is much greater. Just not everything becomes public.







The US military is now frantically searching for what to replace this "best BMP" in the world. At one time, they were looking at Israeli armored “Namer” and Swedish CV9035 infantry fighting vehicles, in the framework of the GCV program they tried to start developing 84-ton (!) BMP. But in the coming years, the replacement of the BMP M-2 "Bradley" is not expected.
Author:
Originator:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-14704.htm
231 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 17 January 2016 05: 30
    64
    What can not but rejoice on Sunday morning laughing
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 17 January 2016 05: 39
      14
      We call it "bearish (not to be confused with Medvedev's !!!) service" or "American aid" laughing
      1. wanderer_
        wanderer_ 17 January 2016 05: 56
        26
        "American aid" is also in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Armed Forces complained that armored vehicles with plastic windows came laughing or how Parashka took "Hummers" without turrets ... God be with you ...
        1. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 17 January 2016 09: 42
          12
          In my opinion with plastic doors.
          Well, they thought that the new Gelendvagens would push them?
          1. Sasha_Sar
            Sasha_Sar 18 January 2016 17: 10
            +6
            That would then "drive" them to someone. Americans are stupid, but not so ...
        2. LeftPers
          LeftPers 18 January 2016 16: 34
          10
          No mileage in the CIS laughing
        3. Dr. Mike
          Dr. Mike 10 September 2017 23: 37
          0
          With plastic windows? And cotton wool believes this nonsense?
          Well, you only confirmed what I knew for a long time.
      2. papik09
        papik09 17 January 2016 07: 39
        17
        Quote: yuriy55
        "American aid"

        hi
        Sorry, I will correct you. In preference this is called "Anglo-American aid". This is when two players "assist" the third in "closing the bullet" drinks
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 17 January 2016 07: 30
      14
      Americans still rate their M-2 "Bradley" BMP as the best in the world.


      an example of inflated false conceit, even Arabs' friends prefer BMP3 to this nonsense ...
      1. Dembel77
        Dembel77 17 January 2016 14: 02
        17
        Well what do you want - DShK. And the "Kord" bullet of the B-32 cartridge pierces 20 mm of steel from 100 m, and the bullet of the BS and BS-41 cartridges does the same from a distance of 750 m.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 09: 49
          +4
          Quote: Dembel 77
          Well, what do you want - DShK.

          I, too, would treat the DShK with great respect, this is a "machine" for breaking through armor, and not some kind of pukalka. Maybe, according to modern concepts, it is heavy, the recoil is not frail, but put goals on all this, she only feels that a full pi ... t has flown to her.
      2. Dr. Mike
        Dr. Mike 10 September 2017 23: 39
        -1
        Arabs buy what is cheaper, all the more so almost always for free, since Russia will write off debts ... and those Arabs who are richer in buying the best are in the USA.
    3. vodolaz
      vodolaz 17 January 2016 19: 38
      +8
      The Germans didn’t refuse the Leopards either, no matter how much the Americans pressed. Especially considering the fact that the Leopards are superior to the Abrams in everything. Americans often impose their weapons.
      1. gladcu2
        gladcu2 17 January 2016 20: 50
        +8
        vodolaz

        Intrusive partners. Impose everything. And weapons and ideology and defense services. Like a gopnik, buy a brick.
        Hence the forms of neighborhood and dialogue.

        But nevertheless, and in general on the article. Respect for the US Army is not worth it. Even if Bradley showed a number of weak points, apply tactics. They have no restriction; they limit it. And if you do not succeed, and to hell with it.
        1. Foxmara
          Foxmara 18 January 2016 16: 56
          +9
          exactly. and by the way, BMP with its armor and should not hold any anti-tank or any other means except machine-gun and machine-gun fire. A heavy machine gun, and sometimes an SVD, pierces its armor. So its penetration is not a reason to rejoice, it should generally be. Now, if the Yankees sold other interesting cars to Ukraine that could not be overcome by a small lift, it was funny.
          1. albezdelev
            albezdelev 18 January 2016 17: 59
            +3
            And also our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are swimming, and not bad can swim across a bunker of 200-2000 meters, and maybe even hit the bridge guard together with the dropped landing force. But the reservation is bulletproof and if you shun the heel of a dunger from above, then the driver’s mechanic can go outside through a water cannon (just kidding)
      2. Dr. Mike
        Dr. Mike 10 September 2017 23: 40
        0
        And what? Pressed hard? Is there a proof?
        And who told you that Abrams is worse?
    4. Dr. Mike
      Dr. Mike 10 September 2017 23: 35
      0
      Just the joy of another stuffing.
      No need to think, and already happy.
      laughing
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 17 January 2016 05: 40
    91
    Here is a photo for comparing the size of the vehicles. There is a BMD but it differs little in height from the BMP. Bradley is clearly easier to get into wink
    1. aiden
      aiden 17 January 2016 08: 23
      11
      bmd and you can dig and shoot from the turret. but I think no one will be American
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 09: 59
        +2
        Quote: aiden
        you can dig

        With the help of a crawler excavator, the Belarus-excavator will not pull here, it only has a boom that goes down to two meters. And it will not be enough for such a colossus.
        1. _Alexei_
          _Alexei_ 19 January 2016 15: 44
          0
          You decided to dig up the water
    2. blizart
      blizart 17 January 2016 09: 13
      138
      I’m like a Russian military man, but having spent all my life with Russian weapons, I’ll say that this may be a little off topic: Now many people are worried about ousting Russia from regions that are already critically important for it. No matter how it sounds to anyone, make your weapon and arm everyone who needs it. To see all the labels On, Off, Turn right, Check the operation of the BTSN, etc. The Kazakh army has been pushing for decades to move to its native language and in everyday life it has almost worked out, but how it comes to the language of technical characteristics, reports, reports. Everything! The most stubborn lover of the uniqueness of a nomadic civilization is forced to admit that his free vital activity did not work out - dry, not allowing a double interpretation of speech. A word of honor every day I watch their attempts to convey on their own, simple army concepts: to concentrate, to advance. What am I doing? Everyone who fights with reliable Russian weapons always remembers this word, affectionately remembered in a different way - Rus. And then tell me how to relate to it if it saves your life?
      1. TT62
        TT62 17 January 2016 11: 06
        +3
        I wonder how the integral will be in Ukrainian.
        1. Zymran
          Zymran 17 January 2016 11: 22
          +5
          Quote: TT62
          I wonder how the integral will be in Ukrainian.


          And in Russian how?
          1. Aleksey_K
            Aleksey_K 18 January 2016 20: 55
            +5
            Quote: Zymran
            Quote: TT62
            I wonder how the integral will be in Ukrainian.


            And in Russian how?

            The integral word is translated into Russian as a sum.
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 09
          0
          There is an option - read the opposite = lar [x] etni. And then they’re not reprimand.... And then they all in a crowd in the parliament were looking for a replacement for the word "airport", although the word is partially Latin, and here the variant "tropare [r] a"
        3. yugan
          yugan 20 January 2016 01: 42
          +1
          Quote: TT62
          I wonder how the integral will be in Ukrainian.

          Intrigue wink
      2. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 18 January 2016 20: 07
        +3
        In no case do I want to offend neither Kazakhs nor anyone else, but in your words I see confirmation of philologists not only of the uniqueness of the Russian language (any Slavophil can assert without bothering with research) but also that the language is closer to the "original" language. This means richer and more functional languages ​​that have become poorer due to many centuries of "simplification" (I would say primitivization, degradation). Note to lovers of all sorts of "Ok" ... ("norms", and other other bottles of lemonade ... sorry cola).
      3. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 04
        +1
        In the Chernihiv military registration and enlistment office, in front of my eyes, the "rukhovets" tried to connect colleagues at work to the translation of the word "bomb shelter". I whinnied softly in the bosom.
      4. iouris
        iouris 19 January 2016 23: 56
        +3
        To build a state, you need to create a state language - a special language that is spoken by professionals. I think it takes 200-300 years to do this. Not every state has so much time. In Kazakhstan, the Russian language is (almost) a second state language. Stupid managers have saved it for use as a special language.
        Another example is Ukraine. Despite all the political attempts, ukroarmiya speaks Russian. Explain to you why? Because all charters and instructions are written in Russian. No, not in the language "she", but in the state Russian language, the language of the state, which is at least three hundred years old.
    3. vihuhol
      vihuhol 17 January 2016 17: 09
      +3
      in size like T 34 and Sherman in WWII
      1. ksv1973
        ksv1973 17 January 2016 22: 21
        14
        Quote: vihuhol
        in size like T 34 and Sherman in WWII

        Yes. But if the T-34 even externally is the top of aesthetics, then Sherman and Bradley are some kind of armored galoshes! laughing
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 18 January 2016 06: 57
          +1
          Quote: ksv1973
          Sherman and Bradley - some armored galoshes!

          Who cares, here is about Bradley and her modifications http://wartools.ru/bmp/bmp-m2-bradley. Why arrange dancing with a tambourine? request
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 18 January 2016 18: 33
            +2
            Quote: Bayonet
            http://wartools.ru/bmp/bmp-m2-bradley.

            Not interested in the technique of a potential enemy - do not read, but for what are the cons? Is this another cheer-patriotic vyser? request
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 19 January 2016 06: 29
              0
              Quote: Bayonet
              Is this another cheer-patriotic vyser?

              Judging by the silence, it seems the most smile
            2. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 21
              +4
              Have you seen pictures of the Bradley in the field? An American soldier enters it without bending down, and if he is on the ground, then he can only reach the edge of the hull on tiptoe. This is a monster among the BMP.
            3. ksan
              ksan 19 January 2016 10: 34
              +8
              Bayonet (5) RU Yesterday, 18:33 ↑
              Quote: Bayonet
              http://wartools.ru/bmp/bmp-m2-bradley.
              Not interested in the technique of a potential enemy - do not read, but for what are the cons? Is this another cheer-patriotic vyser? request
              In vain you run into hurray-patriots, many "things" are done on hurray-patriotism, which do not pass on rationalism. Example - Self-defense of Crimea with the preparation of a referendum, Capture of the first cities and authorities in Donbass. If not for the first impulse, "raising the buchi" Hurray-patriots another question would now be "Crimea-Nash" or DNR and LNR. So do not use a derogatory tone and pictures to Ur-patriots. hi
            4. Airborne Major
              Airborne Major 19 January 2016 21: 26
              +1
              Quote: Bayonet
              Not interested in the technique of a potential enemy - do not read, but for what are the cons? Is this another cheer-patriotic vyser?
              Reply Quote Report Abuse

              Never mind. Studying the possibilities of a potential adversary is the destiny of professionals. soldier
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 16
        +1
        Quote: vihuhol
        in size as
        KV, ISs will be a little lower, T-36 1941 of 2400 mm. With Bradley, if only the Panther compares, the largest tank before 1944. Except for the T-35.
    4. Bayonet
      Bayonet 18 January 2016 07: 09
      +7
      Quote: Magic Archer
      Here is a photo to compare the size of the equipment.

      BMP-2 dimensions

      -Case Length, mm: 6735
      - Case Width, mm: 3150
      -Height, mm: 2450 (for the illuminator); 2250 (on aiming devices)
      -Base, mm: 3600
      -Gauge, mm: 2550
      - Clearance, mm: 420

      And the photo clearly shows that Bradley is much closer smile

      -Bradley Sizes:
      -Case Length, mm: 6452
      - Case Width, mm: 3200
      -Height mm: 2972
      - Clearance, mm: 460
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 23
        +2
        Quote: Bayonet
        -Height mm: 2972
        is it on aiming devices?
        BMD-2 only reaches the edge of the hull, so we will measure our antenna height, and "Bradley" at the lowest point.
    5. SIvan
      SIvan 18 January 2016 18: 07
      +4
      Here is a photo to compare the size of the equipment.Here BMD but it differs little in height from BMP. In Bradley is clearly easier to get

      If you did not know, the BMD has a variable clearance - hydropneumatic suspension.
      In addition, this is BMD-2.
      BMP-3 and BMD-4 more.
      Well, indeed, Bradley is much closer.
      1. yugan
        yugan 20 January 2016 01: 47
        +1
        Actually, the BMDshka is not omitted in the photo, if that.
    6. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 09: 53
      +3
      Quote: Magic Archer
      Bradley is clearly easier to get into.

      So much iron for one scribe.
  3. LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 17 January 2016 06: 13
    10
    But in the coming years, the replacement of the BMP M-2 "Bradley" is not expected.
    And no need to change. Like so, the best match in the world .. BMP and change? Let them burn, that is, these freaks serve.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 18 January 2016 17: 45
      +8
      Quote: LÄRZ
      And no need to change. Like so, the best matches in the world ..

      Well, let’s say that the Abrams tank is not the first freshness. Despite the fact that in its latest modifications it was never bothered to put an automatic loader. A Negro is apparently cheaper in the form of a recharger.
  4. Homo
    Homo 17 January 2016 06: 20
    46
    But in the game "Armata" "Bradley" super-duper pepelats. The T-72 does not penetrate it, but it extinguishes the T-72 with a bang. Not just a game, but a brochure about the superiority of Western technology.
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 17 January 2016 07: 53
      -6
      What the fuck already? Really fed up with how the discussion of armored vehicles begins - over-aged slobber immediately begins to write opuses about their "tanks", they measure themselves by "straightness of hands." Bring down on shkolotskie forums and shake your pipis there !!!
      1. x587x
        x587x 17 January 2016 11: 12
        35
        You need to understand, people write that the game is not true.
      2. kenig1
        kenig1 17 January 2016 11: 20
        13
        Do not hysteria.
      3. Foxmara
        Foxmara 18 January 2016 17: 05
        14
        the question is not in "pipiski" but in the adequacy of people making games for OUR CHILDREN. Why come up with something, if you can see that the striped technique with a machine gun makes a TANK. In direct collision. Yankees will come up with everything, use it.
      4. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 34
        +3
        Actually, this kind of propaganda really, really affects the minds, I had to bring a reference book of WWII tanks to work and show in photographs how the SU-100 and SPG-152 look like. Players in "Tanks" stubbornly believed that the SU-100 has a speed of up to 35 km, while ISU and ACS-152 run up to 55 km. If you show them that "Bradley" T-72s hit from a kilometer away, they will believe it too.
    2. aiden
      aiden 17 January 2016 08: 28
      21
      although in fact it is practically harmless to him. and in games, well, the developers do not like our tanks, apparently their grandfathers fought on other tanks, on the other side of the barricades. I didn’t play armature, but that's for sure in WOT. Although the Germans also had decent cars. biased towards our tanks are generally
      1. T-130
        T-130 17 January 2016 09: 36
        +8
        What do you want from games? Their main and first task is to make a profit!
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 17 January 2016 20: 58
          10
          T-130

          In addition to profits, there is also ideology, including as a concept of development and future profits. In any case, the process is selfish, wait for trouble.

          Computer games form a society.
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 42
          0
          Quote: T-130
          produce a profit
          ??? and behind the profit is "to dust the brain".
      2. co-creator
        co-creator 17 January 2016 22: 31
        +5
        Quote: aiden
        although in fact it is practically harmless to him. and in games, well, the developers do not like our tanks, apparently their grandfathers fought on other tanks, on the other side of the barricades. I didn’t play armature, but that's for sure in WOT. Although the Germans also had decent cars. biased towards our tanks are generally

        The armature was made by American developers, hence the result. The potato branch of the USSR is very worthy, and CT is the clearest.
      3. yehat
        yehat 18 January 2016 22: 01
        +2
        Well, I don’t know ... in my opinion, WOT developers are quite fans of Russian tanks.
        Another thing, why inflate the performance characteristics of foreign technology to heaven?
        1. Starley from the south
          Starley from the south 18 January 2016 23: 35
          +8
          Quote: yehat
          Another thing, why inflate the performance characteristics of foreign technology to heaven?

          Otherwise, everyone will play on our technology ...
      4. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 18 January 2016 23: 34
        +2
        Quote: aiden
        Although the Germans also had decent cars. biased towards our tanks are generally

        Yes, in the Second World War the Germans had good tanks, better than ours ... on paper. The same Panther, but ... can anyone tell me how she showed herself then? She didn’t show anything, she just broke down often. Also the Tigers, it was very difficult to repair them in the field. The tank history of the Second World War shows. which is won not by the one whose tank performance is better, but whose tank is more reliable, cheaper and more repairable. A powerful weapon and good armor is easier to achieve than to make the same tank cheaper and more reliable.
        1. Kars
          Kars 18 January 2016 23: 35
          +2
          Quote: Starley from the South
          . on paper

          They simply were few, and that’s the whole clue.
          1. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 54
            +3
            Quote: Kars
            there were few

            If the conversion is made in rubles into Deutschmarks, then instead of one Tiger, you can release three T-34-85s from the factory, and if you also take into account that Tigers could not be transported on ordinary platforms, but only on special platforms in eight axes, and they also needed spare transport tracks weighing six tons (in total), and taking into account the repairs after two days of fighting, I quietly neigh in the bosom. How can you release them in the thousands with such costs. And already, about the Royal Tiger, I generally ... just write in my pants, and it's not so funny. Of course, they were monsters on the field ... but how to deliver them to this field. I remember the phrase of the German general: "Tigers" were good wherever they could be delivered ".
        2. 97110
          97110 19 January 2016 19: 05
          0
          Quote: Starley from the South
          The tank history of the Second World War shows. which is won not by the one whose tank performance is better, but whose tank is more reliable, cheaper and more repairable.

          And yet Comrade Lenin spoke of "the greatest organization." The cheapest, most reliable and repairable tanks without a decent organization are left without fuel, shells and information, not being awarded participation in the battle.
        3. yehat
          yehat 19 January 2016 23: 44
          0
          Well, do not blaspheme the Germans too! the panther after the Kursk arc was more or less brought to mind and since 44 years old has shown itself well as a tank for eliminating tank breakthroughs. Americans were generally afraid of contacting her in a tank duel.
      5. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 10: 39
        +2
        Quote: aiden
        Although the Germans also had decent cars

        But here's what is interesting: the Americans with their bazookas reached the Elbe, fighting German tanks, and in Korea, as they met with the T-34, they quickly needed to increase the "bazooka" to 90 mm.
      6. _Alexei_
        _Alexei_ 19 January 2016 15: 55
        0
        maybe it’s good to learn how to give strengths to the weak.
    3. serkhan
      serkhan 17 January 2016 09: 38
      20
      so I think the game was immediately sharpened to maintain the image of Western technology in the minds of the younger generation.
      1. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 18 January 2016 23: 37
        +2
        Quote: serkhan
        so I think the game was immediately sharpened to maintain the image of Western technology in the minds of the younger generation.

        No, do not tell ... Soviet tanks, in general, are the most popular in WOT.
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 19 January 2016 11: 00
        +2
        It's like with Solzhenitsyn, the Americans created him, nominated him for Nobel-Shnobel, and we made a carpet for him, forgetting that "Solzhenitsyn is the most published American writer and the most unreadable in the WORLD !!!" This is how it can be under capitalism, the writer's books are not bought, but he prints new editions, this was not published for the Americans, but for us.
    4. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 17 January 2016 10: 37
      +6
      Spherical tanks in a vacuum. You should not focus not on potatoes, not on a soap factory. Even a very realistic ARMA (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA_2) is not the best way to compare the technique.
      In games, especially for mass use, manufacturers have to average parameters to avoid imbalance, and sometimes (often) even improve in order to attract players. Or come up with (potato) child prodigy.
    5. TT62
      TT62 17 January 2016 11: 08
      11 th
      Worship of everything western, the toy was created by the Russians (if I'm not mistaken).
      1. kenig1
        kenig1 17 January 2016 11: 21
        +7
        Wrong.
    6. NeRTT
      NeRTT 17 January 2016 12: 04
      0
      Aha-Dyatel still that !!! Everything pecks, while you recharge !! laughing Under which nickname are you tanking ?? I'm under my own! wink
    7. Dmitry Toderes
      Dmitry Toderes 18 January 2016 22: 57
      +3
      But in the game "Armata" "Bradley" super-duper pepelats. The T-72 does not penetrate it, but it extinguishes the T-72 with a bang. Not just a game, but a brochure about the superiority of Western technology


      I found an article on Wikipedia about the game "Armata". The developer of the computer game "Armata" is an American company. And you hope for impartiality? Although the name of the game is Russian, the game is American. Here is the link at the bottom.



      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Warfare:_Проект_Армата
      1. Landwarrior
        Landwarrior 19 January 2016 14: 48
        0
        Quote: Dmitry Toderese
        I found an article on Wikipedia about the game "Armata". The developer of the computer game "Armata" is an American company.

        Developer, yes, but who is the customer? My.com, a subsidiary of MAIL.RU wink
        So no bias, one complete balance lol

        If the Belarusians had their own tanks, they would be the main imbs in the World Trade Organization laughing
  5. Приговор
    Приговор 17 January 2016 06: 38
    21
    To the question whether the name "LIE" is relevant to the content, you can answer in the affirmative: YES. RAVE. With which I congratulate all American warriors who are bravely fighting various Arab-Papuans. For the war with Burkina Faso and Gabon, these machines fit perfectly ...;)))
    1. kagorta
      kagorta 17 January 2016 10: 00
      +9
      Omar Nelson Bradley (born Omar Nelson Bradley; February 12, 1893, Clark, Missouri - April 8, 1981, New York, New York) - American military commander, Army General (September 20, 1950), one of the main commanders of the US Army in the North Africa and Europe during the Second World War. After the war, he served as chief of the General Staff of the army; in 1949 became the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. The last (and currently) American military commander who had the rank of army general (5 stars), and the only one to whom this rank was awarded after the end of World War II.
    2. yehat
      yehat 18 January 2016 22: 03
      +1
      Americans even have a movie about what kind of curiosity a car represents and they perfectly understand its disadvantages.
  6. corporal
    corporal 17 January 2016 07: 19
    33
    Saudi BMPs after being defeated by anti-tank weapons light up like matches.
    So any infantry fighting vehicles burn like matches, ours blaze just as brightly.

    looked closely at the Israeli armored vehicles "Namer" ........... in the framework of the GCV program tried to start developing 84-ton (!) BMP.
    So they began to think about heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 17 January 2016 07: 19
    29
    Something hurray-sweat intensified. Either the F-35 is not the same, the Bradley is not the same and burns often ... You might think our armored personnel carriers, bmd and BMP burned out a little all over the world.
    And the conclusion of the article should be as follows: "Nehren to rivet any low-security crap like" Kurganets "for the front edge ... Armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles should fight there exclusively on a tank chassis and with tank armor. And for the rear, mids are ideal." well that's it. Indignantly unfounded cons poured in.
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 17 January 2016 09: 48
      29
      An infantry fighting vehicle on a tank chassis with tank armor is called a tank.
      Armored personnel carriers serve for other purposes, and not for the assault on fortified bands. It is rather armored trucks, scouts, escorts ...
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 17 January 2016 14: 43
        +6
        No, dear. As soon as an airborne landing appears in it, it is already an infantry transporter. In fact. And not according to different nomenclatures there. And his task is the same as that of an armored personnel carrier - to take out infantry under conditions of enemy fire at the line of combat use. And evacuate under the same conditions. And also, to provide ammunition, etc.
        A tank is a tank. His task is to fire at the enemy.
        1. yehat
          yehat 18 January 2016 22: 10
          +1
          about the tank: not only fire, moral, too,
          as well as providing the potential to quickly advance an attack.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 January 2016 10: 32
      +5
      Our infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers from burning from RPGs will burn even better, Bradley has at least dynamic protection and mounted armor, unlike ours - which are completely bare.
      1. VP
        VP 17 January 2016 18: 38
        19
        Burn the same.
        But our BMPs have a lower silhouette, higher mobility and less pathos
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 January 2016 19: 31
          +3
          To the height of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers - modern ATGM in general on the drum.
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 18 January 2016 00: 56
            16
            Stupid children don't give a damn about it. And the ATGM missile is guided along the silhouette. The smaller the silhouette, the harder it is to aim, Karl.
            1. lysyj bob
              lysyj bob 18 January 2016 12: 17
              +7
              "The smaller the silhouette, the harder it is to keep in sight."
              Absolutely right. Some well-known tank creators said that the best defense for a tank is when a projectile flies past.
              And if you need to dig in? How long will it take for the crew to excavate the foundation pit for their cruiser? I will not argue that our machines are ideal, but here is a historical example: in the late 60s, the a-kanians got a trophy "kopeck", decided to conduct a training battle, but because ... They did not have such machines, they put up the M-48 against it, the test result - with the A-kan crew, the "kopeck" won 8 battles out of 10. I myself have operated "deuces". My last car was made in Czechoslovakia. The car is excellent if you know how to use it. And about "Bradley" I will say this: PR should be less.
              1. lysyj bob
                lysyj bob 18 January 2016 12: 54
                +7
                PS
                “In Yemen, BMP-3s operated in conjunction with Leclerc tanks. They confidently hit the identified targets, both day and night, using thermal imaging sights "Namut". Once again, the advantages of the armament unit, consisting of 100-mm and 30-mm cannons, as well as a 7,62-mm machine gun were demonstrated. The highest marks were awarded to the active deployment of the landing. The cars moved confidently on the sands, they had no problems with engine overheating, ”the author writes.
                The fighting in Yemen confirmed the reliability of the BMP-3
                During the entire operation, only one BMP was irretrievably lost.
                1. cast iron
                  cast iron 19 January 2016 00: 17
                  +1
                  The level of combat losses is primarily tactics, strategy and organization in the troops. BMP-3 armored is not something super outstanding. It is not much superior to the cardboard BMP-2 in this regard.
          2. zaboyschik
            zaboyschik 18 January 2016 09: 31
            +5
            Do not say nonsense, for bearded with RPG or DShK dimensions are of great importance, I tell you this as a practitioner. And for the ATGMs of previous generations as well. And the main use of these infantry fighting vehicles so far is against such a contingent.
          3. yehat
            yehat 18 January 2016 22: 16
            +2
            as well as the thickness of the armor ...
            however, I do not like the imposition of lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers as the only choice
            how many cars suffered from commonplace small arms fire, well-protected infantry vehicles should have appeared long ago. It is important not to rush to extremes and bear the costs of a harmonious combination of DIFFERENT machines.
        2. tchoni
          tchoni 17 January 2016 20: 51
          +4
          And the armor is thinner ... And the tanks are right next to the landing force (these are 1ka and 2ka) and the 100mm landmines are placed directly in the landing force (this is three) ... And the difficulty of leaving the landing is the armored personnel carrier. And screams that our armored vehicles are the most correct in the world :-)
          All pieces of iron stand each other :-)
      2. dzeredzavkomimu
        dzeredzavkomimu 18 January 2016 01: 00
        +4
        and there a tall black man gets up to his full height and drinks coffee, you first have to get into ours, but you don’t need to aim in this box
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 18 January 2016 08: 59
          -5
          Just look at the number of hits in our boxes and make a conclusion about whether the envelope saves from RPGs and birds.
          Dimension seriously affects the survival of armored vehicles only if the enemy is a small-form artillery with direct fire.
          And that is not always ...
          1. zaboyschik
            zaboyschik 18 January 2016 09: 35
            +8
            Have you tried to get from an RPG on a flying BMP 2? And I tried, if our technique was the size of Bradley, there would be much more hits. What kind of statistics are these? "Look at the number of hits" where to look and how to compare? Is there a conflict or comparative test? And many times I wanted our cans to be higher, it's really hard to hit.
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 18 January 2016 11: 45
              -2
              From the experience of shooting at the Shteites, the main misses are due to an error in determining the speed and incorrect lead, and not because of a range error. So when shooting at a moving infantry fighting vehicle, the length is critical, not the height of the object.
              By the way, where did you manage to gain experience shooting at our infantry fighting vehicles in commodity quantities?
              And yet, if you look at the latest domestic armored vehicles, you will see that it has grown a little in size and added to the defense (I'm talking about armature and kurgan). Moreover, the Kurgan is built on the Bradley ideology.
              1. cast iron
                cast iron 19 January 2016 00: 23
                +1
                Kurgan turned out to be so high in many respects because of more serious protection against mines. Plus, you absolutely did not take into account that the combat module in our new armored vehicles is UNABILABLE. So the height should be considered exactly to the roof of the body, and not the tower. The same thing with the Armata tank. Our designers played precisely on this - exchanged the inhabited tower for slightly higher ceilings in the fighting compartment.
                By the way, the new Kurgan is BELOW Bradley anyway. And it is visible.
                About the speed. You didn’t take into account at all that in addition to PT means there are also OFS fragments from artifacts. The larger the profile of the target, the more OFS of fragments it perforates.
                1. tchoni
                  tchoni 19 January 2016 09: 33
                  0
                  What you are saying is all the details .. On the same Bradley you can lightly put the DBM ... I'm talking about the general layout and ideology of the machine. Both Kurganets and Bradley are the result of taking into account the experience of using lightly protected vehicles in combat. For amers, this is primarily the M-113 for us, this is the BMP family - 1,2. At the same time, practice has shown the need to strengthen protection. The cameras, as more sensitive to personnel losses, came to this a little earlier. We - a little later, and tried to go our own way, adopting the BMP-3, which, being in its very outstanding vehicle, turned out to be rather a light tank than infantry transporters.
                  To replace her and others BMP and Kurganets is called to come.
                  And as for the protection against fragments and taking into account the height of the tower - well, it is very similar to the cries of Ukrainians on the censor: the Kurgan tower is uninhabited, its height is unreadable ...
                2. tchoni
                  tchoni 19 January 2016 09: 36
                  0
                  And yet, how does speed affect damage from shell fragments?
              2. zaboyschik
                zaboyschik 20 January 2016 00: 35
                0
                My place of residence is a village in 17 km from Debaltseve, now working in the Russian Federation. On the 15000 militia four mouths you don’t really feed. In fairness, not RPG-7 but RPG-26, but the principle is the same. That will give uram Bradley then compare. Although unlikely.
                1. tchoni
                  tchoni 20 January 2016 19: 08
                  +1
                  That is yes. It is unlikely that Ukrainians will give Bradley. This device is for those who can pay. For them, the current written-off measurements ...
      3. Yak-3P
        Yak-3P 18 January 2016 15: 01
        +3
        I saw in the 95th BTR-80 with the 8th (eight Carl) !! hits from RPG and Ptur and he was driving !!!
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 18 January 2016 15: 19
          +1
          This proves that size is in no way a determining factor in the lethality of armored vehicles .. Here is an armored personnel carrier .. Orthodox, ideologically consistent "nesarai" and it contains 8 hits.
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 19 January 2016 00: 29
            +2
            And where did you get the idea that the BTR80 is a low-profile, difficult to defeat tool? ))) Then BMD-2 would be taken as a basis. That's where the small envelope is.
    3. Gerhard
      Gerhard 17 January 2016 22: 24
      -3
      Quote: tchoni
      Something hurray-sweat intensified. Either they fy-35 is not like that, then "Bradley" is not the same and burns often ..

      the herd must believe in the invincibility of the domestic pelvis, and the fact that the phynt is lost by the force of one's thoughts.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    4. Yak-3P
      Yak-3P 18 January 2016 14: 58
      +3
      it was exactly on paper but forgot about the ravines .. in war there is always a mess and no one ever thinks - there is armor - go !!
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 18 January 2016 15: 21
        0
        I agree with this, that’s why armor should be armor, not paper ...
        1. yehat
          yehat 18 January 2016 22: 32
          +3
          for armor to be armor, the army must have experience like the Red Army in the 45th
          this is more important than the thickness of the armor, millimeters of the caliber of the gun or silhouette
          the Germans defeated our KV-1s at TIII, our Panthers defeated at T70.
          Once again, you run the risk of getting into a mistake by discussing TTX only.
          Do you think ours could not make a megabronded monster for infantry 50 years ago? Yes Easy! But it was necessary to put on wheels not a battalion, but several divisions and drive far from the most pleasant terrain. And so the BMP appeared, not the Israeli intention. To understand what we could do, do not be lazy and drive into Kubinka, see dozens of cars. I was particularly struck by this machine and its performance characteristics
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_279
  8. Massik
    Massik 17 January 2016 07: 25
    20
    Another American disgrace: BMP M-2 "Bradley" in Saudi Arabia in battles burn like matches
    Yeah, only BMP 1-2-3 in the same conditions burn even better and you do not have to pretend that you did not know this.
    1. jurgen2206
      jurgen2206 17 January 2016 10: 28
      14
      Other things being equal, the dimensions of this American barn are far from an advantage, no?
      1. Gerhard
        Gerhard 17 January 2016 20: 26
        -1
        Quote: jurgen2206
        Other things being equal, the dimensions of this American barn are far from an advantage, no?

        but the fact that this shed is an advantage, since this "shed" accommodates all the equipment that the unit needs, since there is an air conditioner, as it is protected by hinged armor.
        Is the silhouette tall? Well, the sense of the low silhouette if modern complexes can get into the rubik's cube.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 18 January 2016 00: 57
          +3
          They will not be able to get into the low silet hidden in the terrain. The larger the silhouette. the harder it is to hide it.
        2. dzeredzavkomimu
          dzeredzavkomimu 18 January 2016 01: 16
          +3
          I saw a video from Syria like ..hammer .. from a shot from ..tou .. literally drove forward five meters and the rocket flew by, so don’t make people laugh about the rubik’s cube, where did you see modern complexes in the battle runner? maximum RPG, but the fact that the barn is an advantage in general I do not want to comment on this nonsense
      2. Svetoch
        Svetoch 17 January 2016 20: 43
        0
        As mentioned above, modern anti-tank weapons height does not play a big role. Although of course the barn is still one laughing
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 19 January 2016 00: 33
          0
          Specify what "modern" means are you talking about? As far as I remember, all modern ATGMs of the TOW type or our analogs are controlled by wires or infrared / laser channel, while their missiles are NOT SELF-PRODUCING. This means that the silhouette of the target must be kept in the sight.
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 17 January 2016 20: 19
      +3
      It was generally said that the Saudi Bradley and other armored vehicles were killed due to their completely stupid use by the Saudis themselves. The tactics of using armored vehicles by the Yankees and Saudis are completely different. Hence the losses hi
      1. Gerhard
        Gerhard 17 January 2016 22: 21
        0
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        It was generally said that the Saudi Bradley and other armored vehicles were killed due to a completely stupid

        Yes, they use it as a tank and even in an urban area, which is simply not equipped, fool
    3. dzeredzavkomimu
      dzeredzavkomimu 18 January 2016 01: 11
      +4
      everything burns and everything explodes, let's buy a Bradley, in vain they drove Serdyukov, he wanted to buy leopards))) and then the whole world, they do not buy Bradley, but we are the smartest. maneuverable, the armor is the same, but about the caliber of the 2nd and 3rd BMPs without comment at all
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 19 January 2016 00: 35
        0
        The armor is not the same. Bradley is protected in a circle from 12,7mm from 100 meters. BMP3 and especially BMP2 can’t boast of such armor. They have it more differentiated. Those. standing ambush with DShK in the bushes from the side - this is deadly for our BMP2 and BMP3 (unshielded).
  9. Support
    Support 17 January 2016 07: 34
    +3
    Quote: Homo
    But in the game "Armata" "Bradley" super-duper pepelats. The T-72 does not penetrate it, but it extinguishes the T-72 with a bang. Not just a game, but a brochure about the superiority of Western technology.

    I agree to all 100%. True, I do not play Armata, only in World of Tanks. And there, too, all Soviet equipment is the most fig. Some of the coolest techniques are Dzhapovskaya, Merikosovskaya, Glitskaya. Damn, this game must be banned, pure propaganda of everything imported and vulgarization and humiliation of all Soviet, one might say, Russian.
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 17 January 2016 07: 55
      16 th
      Another tankish overweight, already sick of you.
      1. 0255
        0255 17 January 2016 11: 35
        22
        Quote: Megatron
        Another tankish overweight, already sick of you.

        A person does not judge tanks by game, but says that in modern games we are shown the total superiority of American weapons over Russian or Soviet, thereby suggesting that the USA is cooler.
        1. Megatron
          Megatron 17 January 2016 12: 44
          11
          I’m reading about all kinds of tanks in every thread, devoted to armored vehicles here. Sooner or later, all discussions on them and slide.

          Personally, I'm tired of it, but judging by the number of minuses, there are such "overgrown tankers" through one.

          Let’s discuss RPGs with various other weapons on the subject of how they shoot in Battle4, or in Counter-Strike.
          Nasty, ugh!

          Ps if you collect 3 stars, then the T-34 turns into Armata.
      2. dzeredzavkomimu
        dzeredzavkomimu 18 January 2016 01: 19
        +1
        and the nickname Megatron is so ordinary? how old are you dear?
        1. Megatron
          Megatron 18 January 2016 02: 42
          +2
          Well, of course I could call myself "salty" or "seasoned", what would change from that?
          I am approaching the age of Christ, and by the way, I’m not writing any heresy here.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 17 January 2016 08: 22
      -8
      Do not need Soviet st10 fierce imbs, and IS-2 prem which is no worse than the serial machine, ore, IS-3, ISU-152, ms-1, KV1 and kvass on gold, KV-85 t-34 57, t-34 -85 t-44 hands straighten, or claws, then only the artillery artists play.
      In general, the forum you made a mistake.
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 17 January 2016 09: 09
        +8
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Do not need Soviet st10 fierce imbs

        What was that? wassat
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. martin-159
            martin-159 17 January 2016 18: 27
            0
            Are there no feathers anywhere below?
      2. sleeping sayan
        sleeping sayan 17 January 2016 09: 31
        0
        What are you talking about?
      3. Mik13
        Mik13 17 January 2016 15: 30
        19
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Do not need Soviet st10 fierce imbs, and IS-2 prem which is no worse than the serial machine, ore, IS-3, ISU-152, ms-1, KV1 and kvass on gold, KV-85 t-34 57, t-34 -85 t-44 hands straighten, or claws, then only the artillery artists play.
        In general, the forum you made a mistake.


        1. Megatron
          Megatron 18 January 2016 05: 09
          +7
          It’s probably time to write to the Administration so that these tank children are removed from the squad.
      4. vihuhol
        vihuhol 17 January 2016 17: 15
        +4
        Yes, if it weren’t for the art-guides you would have divorced a great many)))
    3. T-130
      T-130 17 January 2016 09: 38
      -5
      I think so if you wish, all this can be reconfigured as soon as the prospect of closing the game shines, they will quickly make the right technique the best!
    4. co-creator
      co-creator 17 January 2016 22: 39
      -6
      Quote: Prop
      only in World of Tanks. And there, too, all Soviet equipment is the most fig. Some of the coolest techniques are Dzhapovskaya, Merikosovskaya, Glitskaya. Damn, this game must be banned, pure propaganda of everything imported and vulgarization and humiliation of all Soviet, one might say, Russian.

      I play and didn’t notice this. 62, 140, 907 they will give 100 points of odds to amers. TT yes, worse and then only 9-10 lvl. What is the best lvl 8 car from heavy? So do not.
      1. yehat
        yehat 18 January 2016 22: 42
        -4
        Is-3 is advertised only by foolish people
    5. Yak-3P
      Yak-3P 18 January 2016 15: 06
      0
      Well, in the first you’re wrong .. and in the second, see point 1
  10. Dart2027
    Dart2027 17 January 2016 08: 03
    13
    In the United States itself, a comedy film was shot GDK told the story of the creation of this "masterpiece" - the Pentagon War. If I am not mistaken, the idea was taken from the memoirs of one of the participants.
    http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/94985/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq4GJ2oKSDk

    BMP, which is not suitable for transporting soldiers.
    A reconnaissance vehicle that is too visible to conduct reconnaissance.
    An unfinished tank, whose armor is thinner than that of a snow blower.
    But at the same time with weapons sufficient to smash half the state
  11. Reeds
    Reeds 17 January 2016 08: 17
    +5
    You will remember how the Americans praised the Abramas and how this tank was carried out in Iraq.
    And there is nothing new here, if the Pentagon is confident in its "the best combat vehicles in the world", then the people who directly use them in hostilities have no illusions. And what they are now frantically looking for, well, God help, there is simply a question, but will they not find a similar "object" like "Bradley" smile
    1. jurgen2206
      jurgen2206 17 January 2016 10: 34
      +4
      However, there is one but! According to them, with all the "handed out" abrashkas, the dead tankers during the entire campaign in Iraq was ... attention ... one! And even when they got into the ammunition, there were wounded, not killed. There is something to think about, right?
      1. Megatron
        Megatron 17 January 2016 11: 11
        19
        So this is where a lot. Is that familiar?
        1. jurgen2206
          jurgen2206 17 January 2016 11: 16
          0
          Maybe. But you need to refute the argument. I have no other information than the one written above.
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 17 January 2016 22: 46
            +2
            Quote: jurgen2206
            Maybe. But you need to refute the argument. I have no other information than the one written above.

            So there is nothing to refute. We are offered to believe in the word and that's it.
      2. Artyom
        Artyom 17 January 2016 11: 40
        +7
        I advise you not to spread nonsense, but go to YouTube and see how Abrams behaves after getting Cornet in the tower! Https: //youtu.be/qy7CBKSujiE
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 17 January 2016 21: 02
          +3
          Believe me, 72ka, especially with full ammunition, is even worse. I will not upload videos. YouTube is full of them.
          The whole debate can be reduced to questions: do armored vehicles need protection? Should I make her comfortable? Do I need to save the life of the crew above technology? Or do you need to continue to stupidly rely on the heroism of a Russian soldier?
      3. yehat
        yehat 18 January 2016 22: 45
        0
        in a real battle, the crew dies along with the tank. and it doesn’t matter if they burned in the tank, or managed to pop out, because they’ll just shoot
    2. yehat
      yehat 18 January 2016 22: 43
      -1
      Abrams is famous for being knocked out even with a pistol
      if you know where to attach the bullet
  12. aiden
    aiden 17 January 2016 08: 17
    +8
    Yes, and ours burn not badly, and Ukrainian ones. And they are stitched from machine guns. and any tank burn. and not only the Saudis have them, I noticed in the video that the current Iraqi army also has them. True, they practically do not use them now, due to the fact that there is no armor and burn well
  13. Min
    Min 17 January 2016 08: 19
    +8
    Quote: Prop
    Quote: Homo
    But in the game "Armata" "Bradley" super-duper pepelats. The T-72 does not penetrate it, but it extinguishes the T-72 with a bang. Not just a game, but a brochure about the superiority of Western technology.

    I agree to all 100%. True, I do not play Armata, only in World of Tanks. And there, too, all Soviet equipment is the most fig. Some of the coolest techniques are Dzhapovskaya, Merikosovskaya, Glitskaya. Damn, this game must be banned, pure propaganda of everything imported and vulgarization and humiliation of all Soviet, one might say, Russian.

    don't say pzhlst, bullshit ... in wot owls. the technique is one of the best, universal and popular among the players ... just developed to increase interest in the technique of other nations they began to give them some advantage in review or shooting (for example, Japanese or Czech) ... but anyway - for example medium tanks owls . branches - as they were the best, they remained ...
  14. gas-5903
    gas-5903 17 January 2016 08: 20
    -2
    Well, why did you attack the "tank killer" because recently there was an article about how BREDLY killed "ABRAMS" from a 20 mm cannon
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 17 January 2016 10: 51
      +4
      This BMP 20mm cannon was never equipped. Only 25mm M242 "Bushmaster".
    2. kenig1
      kenig1 17 January 2016 11: 25
      +2
      In a lateral projection, in the engine area it is easy to kill.
    3. Forest
      Forest 17 January 2016 14: 26
      +2
      Firstly, the 25-mm gun, and secondly, the Bushmeister BOPS has about 100 mm penetration at 1 km, so Abrams's feed in 25-40 mm from a short distance is not an obstacle.
  15. Gray 43
    Gray 43 17 January 2016 08: 44
    12
    For RPG-7, they are all on the same face and at the same price, but the barn is really large, and there is a jacuzzi there)))?
  16. Shark Lover
    Shark Lover 17 January 2016 09: 21
    18
    What's the news? The behi burn everything, all countries, burn well, fall apart when undermined, towers fly off like balls. The issue is not the thickness of the armor, but the application of this type of equipment (infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers). Infantry support, delivery to the place, everything. If you let them go like a ram, you get a fire, all the more they write in surprise that the T-55 pierces it))
  17. T-130
    T-130 17 January 2016 09: 43
    12
    BMP and Russian burned well in wars! In fact, it has bulletproof armor, and if I’m not mistaken, the heavy machine gun can penetrate it! Here we must raise the question of tactics and application!
  18. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 17 January 2016 09: 48
    +9
    Quote: Shark Lover
    they write in surprise that the T-55 pierces her)



    These surprised, apparently, do not realize that the T-34 will pierce her. laughing
  19. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 17 January 2016 09: 55
    +5
    But to ride them comfortably.
    Probably konditshen there, leather upholstered)))
    All the same, the war is sluggish, they fight little there, it’s not the Great Patriotic War with Stalingrad and Kursk.
  20. 31rus
    31rus 17 January 2016 10: 03
    +7
    Dear, the pictures directly warm the soul, but on the other hand, the incorrect use of any equipment leads to its loss, I myself am from Prokhorovka, and here a very instructive example the Germans launched new Ferdinants in the first echelon of the offensive, although the Ferdinant was designed as a self-propelled anti-tank gun , the result, not one did not even reach the front edge and there was nothing to evacuate, a powerful pt, turned into piles of metal, being blown up by mines, the Arabs armed with what they think were the most modern weapons, decided that they had no equal, and they could not buy brains, the result is higher on the picture
  21. surrozh
    surrozh 17 January 2016 10: 17
    +6
    Not all the best is American, and American is not always the best. They are advertisers, chattering about almost everything. It is possible to recall the loss of the Air Force in Vietnam, and Spirit in Yugoslavia, and the masterpiece about Obama's “exclusiveness of the nation”.
  22. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 17 January 2016 10: 31
    30
    Well, it's not even funny. Of course, the heart is warm, but the Yankees themselves, to put it mildly, laugh at this machine openly that even with their "freedom of speech" they made a film about him.
    see Pentagon Wars
    1. Oberon812
      Oberon812 17 January 2016 11: 50
      +8
      And I was afraid that no one would remember this wonderful movie smile
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 17 January 2016 14: 53
        +2
        Yet sometimes even the Yankees are self-critical. Once a year and the stick shoots
    2. Kapralwdw
      Kapralwdw 17 January 2016 13: 36
      0
      cool !! :)
      smile
    3. Klibanophoros
      Klibanophoros 18 January 2016 19: 04
      +2
      BMP-3 is not better. am A light tank with cardboard armor, firing old 100-mm shells from the T-54/55 and which paratroopers need to be stuffed like a sprat in a jar. (In reality, they will again be sitting on the armor).
  23. Yak28
    Yak28 17 January 2016 10: 41
    14
    Any infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier is easily affected by grenade launchers and ATGMs, their tank guns are easily carried into the trash.
  24. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 17 January 2016 11: 21
    +9
    Well, the author probably thinks, since the BMP is American, then this is + 100 to armor, + 500 to firepower, and + 100500 to steepness! And in truth, there it is!
    What did you want? Lightweight BBM cannot have super-duper protection, and weapons! BTR80 at close range armor-piercing 5,45 flashes. I myself saw personally, a neat little hole from the core of the bullet, through. Another question is about the tactics of using such machines in battle, and the third question is about overall dimensions! Well, Bradley's too healthy!
    Dream grenade launcher!
    And yet, the KPVT can unravel everything! This is an axiom! With a different effect, but that's it! Any snoring, BMP and armored personnel carriers. Shave any tank until you lose combat capability! And there is ZSUShka, and Shilka! More of those chip makers!
    1. Massik
      Massik 17 January 2016 11: 54
      +5
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      What did you want? Lightweight BBM cannot have super-duper protection, and weapons! BTR80 at close range armor-piercing 5,45 flashes. I myself saw personally, a neat little hole from the core of the bullet, through. Another question is about the tactics of using such machines in battle, and the third question is about overall dimensions! Well, Bradley's too healthy!
      Dream grenade launcher!
      And yet, the KPVT can unravel everything! This is an axiom! With a different effect, but that's it! Any snoring, BMP and armored personnel carriers. Shave any tank until you lose combat capability! And there is ZSUShka, and Shilka! More of those chip makers!
      KPVT ??? wassat Unless, of course, the tank will quietly stand on the site without a crew ... Bradley will not take KPVT head-on, all the same, when the Yankees were developing this box, KPVT was taken into account as the main threat factor. But the 25mm "bushmaster" will pierce through any carrier of KPVT and ZU-23.
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 17 January 2016 14: 46
        +4
        Quote: Marssik
        KPVT ??? Unless, of course, the tank will quietly stand on the site without a crew ... Bradley will not take KPVT head-on, all the same, when the Yankees were developing this box, KPVT was taken into account as the main threat factor. But the 25mm "bushmaster" will pierce through any carrier of KPVT and ZU-23.



        Maybe he won't, but he will be "licked" to the main armor, and they will lick everything from him, except for the mechanical sight (if any) of the 25 mm "bushmaster" cannon, then let them try to find and hit the KPVT and ZU carriers -23, especially the last one.
        1. Massik
          Massik 17 January 2016 15: 24
          +1
          Ahem, I have strong doubts that with the current equipment with surveillance devices, and especially with night vision devices, the BTR 82A or Shilka will be able to be the first to find the American box.
      2. dzeredzavkomimu
        dzeredzavkomimu 18 January 2016 01: 39
        +1
        Well, if the KPVT cartridge is from PTR, then for those tasks the anti-tank rifle pierced 40 mm of armor at a distance of 200 m with a slope of 60 g. Bradley lobovuha 20 mm, so I think the KPVT still pierces the forehead .. Bradley .. at least how
        1. BV330
          BV330 18 January 2016 04: 13
          0
          With all due respect to the technical specifications of PTR 40mm / 60grad / 200metrov - this is fantastic.
          The VYA-23 gun, it is also on Shilka - pierced 25mm / 400 meters with an armor-piercing gun.
  25. konstantin22
    konstantin22 17 January 2016 11: 29
    +1
    Dream grenade launcher!
  26. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 17 January 2016 12: 13
    +6
    Due to the high losses of any anti-tank infantry fighting vehicles
    funds in the Israeli army BMP are not provided at all.
    1. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 17 January 2016 19: 11
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Due to the high losses of any anti-tank infantry fighting vehicles
      funds in the Israeli army BMP are not provided at all.

      What about Namer? And this one, how is Ahazrit?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 17 January 2016 19: 45
        +1
        These are heavy armored personnel carriers with tank armor, but
        machine gun weapons. They should not get involved
        in battles - just bring the infantry to the front line or
        to drive it through the shot area inland.
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 18 January 2016 21: 30
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          These are heavy armored personnel carriers with tank armor, but
          machine gun weapons. They should not get involved
          in battles - just bring the infantry to the front line or
          to drive it through the shot area inland.

          Dear, since all armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles are infantry support vehicles, and not attack equipment. They should always follow the infantry at some distance and use their artillery and machine guns to crush fire weapons that are not available to the infantry.
          By the way, you also use the Merkava only as a "Chariot" to the battlefield? Isn't that how it translates?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 19 January 2016 12: 52
            -1
            "BMP and BMD are infantry support vehicles, not attack vehicles" ///

            But they are equipped with 100 mm guns and ATGMs, not for beauty, right?
            Having such weapons, and not get involved heroically in a full battle?
            And quickly die from enemy tanks, ATGMs and rocket launchers. The armor is frail. recourse
    2. dzeredzavkomimu
      dzeredzavkomimu 18 January 2016 01: 48
      +2
      At one time, I offered our commander a trailer towed by a tank from an old armored personnel carrier with welded sheets of armor and put on skids on a hard hitch))), it seemed to me that it was better to transport infantry to the front line than on armored tanks))) in a series my idea is not went))) but I'm still sure that I was right))) the armor of the trailer was almost tank)))
    3. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 18 January 2016 21: 25
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Due to the high losses of any anti-tank infantry fighting vehicles
      funds in the Israeli army BMP are not provided at all.

      Who do you want to mislead? Younger schoolchildren or professional military?

      As of 2015, the Israeli army counted:
      - 200 heavy armored personnel carriers "Namer";
      - 300 heavy armored personnel carrier "Ahzarit";
      - 400 heavy BRDM "Nagmakhon";
      - several dozen heavy armored personnel carriers "Nakpadon";
      - 400 heavy engineering assault vehicles "Puma";
      - 3000 BTR M113 "Bardelas".

      I must say right - absolute ZERO.
      You will certainly say that the armored personnel carrier is not a BMP. But then it will be like a joke - one of yours gets a job as an accountant, he is asked a question - how many will be two and two, he will answer, and how much is needed?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 19 January 2016 12: 56
        +1
        "Whom do you want to mislead? Growing schoolchildren or professional military men?" ////

        Both younger students and professional military can look into Google
        and see that all of the machines you listed have only machine-gun weapons ...
        smile

        This is strictly - armored personnel carriers, not infantry fighting vehicles. They do NOT move
        behind the infantry, supporting it with fire. For this, we use exclusively tanks and only tanks.
  27. rfv0304
    rfv0304 17 January 2016 12: 20
    +2
    And I believe that Military Review is not working correctly with us. Knowing that these BMPs (the Pentagon's mass grave) or any other type of military equipment from the Americans are obviously bad, we must praise it, looking for positive points. Let ours try to do all military equipment in THREE orders better than theirs. And let the US rest assured that their army is the best. You have to be a little trickier!
  28. Support
    Support 17 January 2016 12: 52
    0
    Quote: Megatron
    Another tankish overweight, already sick of you.

    Sick - no need to overeat or eat muck. Clean young age ......
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 17 January 2016 13: 40
      0
      You write on the topic, and discuss your games on thematic forums, here the site is not for infantiles, who seem to be stuck in the puberty period.
  29. Pissarro
    Pissarro 17 January 2016 13: 04
    +7
    Not so long ago, on September 30, a representative of Kurganmashzavod announced that they had received an application from Iraq for 500 BMP 3 and from Saudi Arabia for 950 BMP 3. Moreover, in Yemen, the Saudis were fighting on ravings, and the United Arab Emirates on BMP 3, the Saudis lively appreciated the advantages of our technicians over the mattress and ran to place an order))
    In general, everything is burning in Yemen, Abrams, f 16, f 15, Apaches, even 5 Saudi ships sank, losses are huge, the war has long creeped into Saudi Arabia. By the way, the Hussites are armed mainly with Soviet weapons.
    This year, for the first time, the day of commemoration of soldiers who died in the war was introduced in the emirates, celebrated on November 30.
    1. Wheel
      Wheel 17 January 2016 17: 10
      +1
      Quote: Pissarro
      Not so long ago, on September 30, a representative of the Kurganmashzavod announced that they had received an application from Iraq for 500 infantry fighting vehicles 3 and from Saudi Arabia for 950 infantry fighting vehicles 3
      .
      Husites, by the way, are armed mainly with Soviet weapons.
      I wonder if they will sell or not ??
      What overpower, thirst for dough or expediency?
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 17 January 2016 21: 30
        0
        It’s not even a matter of money, the Saudis need to quickly, it is difficult to do it purely technically, it is necessary to put on the flow, and so on it is full of orders from all over the world and from our defense industry
    2. APASUS
      APASUS 17 January 2016 18: 35
      0
      Quote: Pissarro
      Not so long ago, on September 30, a representative of the Kurganmashzavod announced that they had received an application from Iraq for 500 BMP 3 and from Saudi Arabia for 950 BMP 3.

      I honestly did not believe it, given our relations with Iran. But I looked and here you are:
      MOSCOW, September 30. / TASS /. Iraq plans to buy 500 BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles from Russia, Saudi Arabia is going to buy 950, Albert Bakov, first vice president and co-owner of the Tractor Plants concern that produces this equipment, told TASS. “We have an application from Iraq for 500 BMP-3 vehicles, as well as from Saudi Arabia for 950 units,” the agency's source said.

      More on TASS:
      http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2302766
  30. Kapralwdw
    Kapralwdw 17 January 2016 13: 12
    +2
    Quote: Magic Archer
    Here is a photo for comparing the size of the vehicles. There is a BMD but it differs little in height from the BMP. Bradley is clearly easier to get into wink


    and our BMD MAY DROP ON THE BOTTOM WITH CLEARANCE OF 10 CENTIMETERS AND IN SUCH POSITION MOVE AND SHOOT TRY IT TO BRADLEY CAN IT? laughing
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 18 January 2016 20: 53
      -1
      Quote: Kapralwdw
      BMD CAN LOWER AT THE BOTTOM WITH A CLEARANCE OF 10 CENTIMETERS AND IN THIS POSITION TO MOVE AND SHOOT TO TRY

      It doesn’t matter to Javelin and his ilk - they hit from above anyway! smile
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 20 January 2016 06: 19
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        they still hit on top!

        I advise the minusher to get acquainted with the characteristics of modern ATGMs! Uryakalam - of course it is useless ....
    2. vova1973
      vova1973 20 January 2016 04: 04
      +1
      with a clearance of 10 cm in the field you get stuck.
  31. fa2998
    fa2998 17 January 2016 13: 43
    +6
    Quote: Corporal
    So any infantry fighting vehicles burn like matches, ours blaze just as brightly.

    What is the conversation about? Lightly armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles) AT ALL should not come into contact with an enemy who has tanks, ATGMs and grenade launchers. They are not intended for this. Only the fault of the politicians who drove them there. Still in Afghanistan, according to charred hulls of our infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers stand along the roadsides. And in Chechnya the picture is familiar (but has already been removed), and "Bradley" is from the same opera. Everyone will burn !! Armored personnel carriers were made for protection against small arms (frontal-max. from 12,6 , XNUMX mm.) yes hi
    1. TOR2
      TOR2 17 January 2016 14: 42
      +5
      Quote: fa2998
      What is the conversation about? Lightly armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles) generally should not come into fire contact with the enemy

      In reality, the delivery vehicle for some reason very often turns into a fire support vehicle.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 18 January 2016 21: 39
        +1
        Quote: TOR2
        Quote: fa2998
        What is the conversation about? Lightly armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles) generally should not come into fire contact with the enemy

        In reality, the delivery vehicle for some reason very often turns into a fire support vehicle.

        Then what the hell are they for? It is possible to reach trucks by the deployment line in battle formations.
        Write to us how you would like to use them? For example, probably, like this: they brought in infantry, dropped them off behind bushes or hid behind a tubercle, God forbid they shot him. And the infantry? Yes, to hell with her, it's not a technique, in bulk.
        And the same with airplanes. There is no need to fly with modern air defense systems.

        As you can’t understand! There is no absolutely protected equipment. Everything in battle can be destroyed.
        So maybe the enemy aggressor should not be fought, how many times it rushes across the border, it’s a pity the soldier, after all?
        1. vova1973
          vova1973 20 January 2016 04: 10
          0
          With the organized interaction of the combat arms, the artillery will take out almost the entire front edge of the tank and infantry fighting vehicles then pass, and to shoot at the entrenched infantry from a moving infantry fighting vehicle and tank will frighten it more. Watch a tank biathlon with 1000 m on clearly visible targets in ideal conditions without fire from the enemy’s side; the best crews are smearing them.
    2. Wheel
      Wheel 17 January 2016 18: 40
      +2
      Quote: fa2998
      Lightly armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles) in general should not come into fire contact with an enemy who has tanks, anti-tank guided missiles and grenade launchers. Not for this they are intended. Only the fault of politicians who drove them there. Until now, in Afghanistan along the roadsides there are charred hulls of our infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

      It, of course, drove them to the wrong place ...
      On the other hand, besides them there was nothing to drive, there was not and is not in service with a mountain / city tank. And so thanks to these burned BMPs how many lives were saved, it is difficult to count, they were not only burning.
    3. Rivares
      Rivares 18 January 2016 21: 05
      +1
      Quote: fa2998
      What is the conversation about? Lightly armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles) generally should not make fire contact with an enemy who has tanks, anti-tank missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. Not for this they are intended. Only the fault of politicians who drove them there. Until now, in Afghanistan the roadsides are the charred hulls of our infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers

      At 41 on the sidelines our trucks were burning. at 45 German burned there. Everything is on fire in the war, but without infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, how would infantry maneuver? For your two?
  32. Forest
    Forest 17 January 2016 14: 21
    +1
    Maybe we recall our BMP-1 and -2, which are inferior to some armored vehicles in terms of armor and weapons, inferior and there is no way to wait for a mass replacement for how long Kurganets will replace, and judging by the video and performance characteristics, the armor will be there with a gulkin nose.
  33. demokrat86
    demokrat86 17 January 2016 15: 03
    +2
    In the battle of armor and shell, the shell confidently wins, and no change in favor of the armor is expected. And rejoice at the losses, whatever they were like ice.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 18 January 2016 21: 47
      0
      Quote: demokrat86
      In the battle of armor and shell, the shell confidently wins, and no change in favor of the armor is expected. And rejoice at the losses, whatever they were like ice.

      Coming soon! Modern means of dynamic and active defense perfectly cope with flying projectiles and missiles. Now new electronic warfare systems are being created that protect the firing zones, much better even than the Israeli Iron Dome.
  34. Hauptam
    Hauptam 17 January 2016 16: 37
    +4
    It’s good to fight on our equipment, but it’s better to serve on Amerovskaya, with all the bells and whistles, water closets and other crap. And to fight only in Soviet, that is, Russian.
  35. Type 63
    Type 63 17 January 2016 17: 49
    +4
    You can knock out and set fire to any technique, and "Bradley" is no exception. T-34s were also on fire, so what?
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 17 January 2016 18: 30
      0
      Quote: Type 63
      You can knock out and set fire to any technique, and "Bradley" is no exception. T-34s were also on fire, so what?

      No one T-34 was positioned as the best tank in the world - he proved it himself. And in the cost of Bradley percent 50 RP expenses.
      1. Massik
        Massik 17 January 2016 23: 24
        +2
        Quote: APASUS

        No one T-34 was positioned as the best tank in the world - he proved it himself. And in the cost of Bradley percent 50 RP expenses.
        Again, the substitution of concepts, for 41-42 years, when the Wehrmacht did not yet have heavily armored monsters from 40 tons, the T-34 was the best tank.
  36. vitvdv75
    vitvdv75 17 January 2016 19: 27
    +2
    Why upset a single and irreplaceable nation, Bradley is the best and point, it’s easier for us to fight
  37. ibirus
    ibirus 17 January 2016 19: 34
    -1
    Who is this for you?
  38. R0B0T
    R0B0T 17 January 2016 21: 36
    +3
    Quote: TT62
    I wonder how the integral will be in Ukrainian.

    now it is fashionable to ask "how the wallet will be in Ukrainian" :)
  39. Chaos
    Chaos 17 January 2016 22: 09
    -2
    Our BMP, BMD, tanks are the best in the world! )))
  40. Radikal
    Radikal 18 January 2016 00: 35
    0

    It was mentioned above that Saudi Arabia was the only country that purchased these BMPs. A total of about Bradley 400 was acquired. Last year, the royal M2 took part in the battles. And again, not entirely successful. In a relatively short period, 5 machines were destroyed. In this case, the Saudi BMP after the defeat of anti-tank funds lit up like a match. According to military experts, in fact, the loss of the Saudis in the BMP is much greater. Just not everything becomes public.
    Nothing is impossible for RPG-7V (and also "Vampire" and "Cornet")! wassat
  41. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 18 January 2016 04: 43
    +2
    Any technique can be knocked out and it will burn because if someone does not know, it drives a solarium. And for this reason, the BC may also explode. But before the above-described case happens, you need to get into this technique and preferably into a vulnerable spot. This is what the article is about. BMP "Bradley" is highly vulnerable that does not correspond to its tales of American propaganda. My opinion is the technique of amerikosov for the parade and show-off and not for the war.
  42. Monetniy
    Monetniy 18 January 2016 09: 30
    +1
    Silhouette bmp armata I think it will not be lower than Bradley or am I mistaken?
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 26 January 2016 22: 59
      0
      Wrong.
  43. Agrokotik1989
    Agrokotik1989 18 January 2016 09: 36
    -1
    Call me a bmp that is designed to hit ptur. Well, the title of the article hints at a weak sketch. Who watched YouTube - saw that the main losses were just abandoned wrecked equipment, which is then set on fire by the camera.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 18 January 2016 22: 03
      0
      Quote: Agrokotik1989
      Call me a bmp that is designed to hit ptur. Well, the title of the article hints at a weak sketch. Who watched YouTube - saw that the main losses were just abandoned wrecked equipment, which is then set on fire by the camera.

      Not very much like setting fire to old technology. But maybe you yourself set it on fire, since you are so sure of it?
  44. Snow
    Snow 18 January 2016 10: 58
    -1
    It’s joyful of course that the Americans are so dumb, and we have so good, but somehow it’s strange. Especially when you consider that their army is constantly fighting, equipment in the total mass is newer, etc.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 18 January 2016 15: 54
      +1
      Where is their army fighting? Where is the meager result? Unless Kosovo was depressed, and not as a result of a military victory, but by taking Milosevic to the pontoon. In Afghanistan, a complete failure from the Taliban, Iraq was essentially a vassal of Iran, the mythical bombing of ISIS and all in the same vein. We have three specific results - pacified Chechnya , independent Abkhazia with Ossetia and Crimea. And a beautiful operation in Syria. What do they have?
  45. kostyan77708
    kostyan77708 18 January 2016 14: 20
    0
    Quote: ShadowCat
    Well, it's not even funny. Of course, the heart is warm, but the Yankees themselves, to put it mildly, laugh at this machine openly that even with their "freedom of speech" they made a film about him.
    see Pentagon Wars

    cool film, watched a long time ago and neighing, in fact this is a film about the entire MIC of mattresses!
  46. taseka
    taseka 18 January 2016 16: 45
    0
    Looks like soon we will see "" the best BMP "in the world" "in Ukraine, where they will light up the local farms with a bright flame!
  47. vandarus
    vandarus 18 January 2016 16: 51
    0
    BMP is hit by anti-tank weapons! This is the "discovery"!
  48. Silman1985
    Silman1985 18 January 2016 18: 50
    -1
    There is a chagrin in life when you eat cookies without bread, the "coconuts" have all the best in quotes, the same F-35 and then crap)
  49. TIM.555
    TIM.555 18 January 2016 19: 15
    +1
    Something like this ))
    1. kumaxa
      kumaxa 22 January 2016 07: 13
      0
      Well, at least they know how to induce criticism.
  50. kapitan92
    kapitan92 18 January 2016 19: 35
    +6
    ..... BMP - tracked combat vehicle with powerful weapons, armor protection, with high maneuverability. Designed to increase mobility, armament and security of motorized rifle units operating on the battlefield ......
    The BMP has its purpose! Under this purpose, weapons, armor protection, etc. are selected.
    Is Bradley on? So what? Let's remember Afghan, Chechnya, and our BMP-1, BMP-2 did not burn? Or maybe the vaunted Merkabas 4 did not burn in the 2nd Lebanese? Or maybe the advertised Abrams didn't burn in Iraq?
    Different fears have their own design concepts for infantry fighting vehicles: we "reduce" the silhouette and increase the speed, and they increase the armor protection and engine power. I will not list all aspects.
    I think the main thing is to tactically correctly use the BMP, as well as anti-tank weapons.