American M2A2 Bradley ODS SA outperforms BMP-3 – results of tests in Russia

77 443 28

For quite a long time there were disputes about which infantry fighting vehicle is better, the M2A2 Bradley ODS SA (USA) or the Soviet/Russian BMP-3. Now everything is clear. Specialists from the 38th Research Institute of BT of the Russian Ministry of Defense conducted and published the results of research (authors Mushin A.V. and Konyuchenko V.V.) tests of the American BMP M2A2 Bradley ODS SA.

According to the findings, the mentioned model of American armored vehicles seriously surpasses its “colleague” in its characteristics (parameters).



The M2A2 ODS SA is better than the BMP-3 in terms of anti-projectile, anti-bullet and anti-mine resistance. The advantage in anti-mine protection is achieved due to two sheets of aluminum and steel installed on the bottom, an anti-mine polymer mat mounted inside and the available shock-absorbing seats for the landing force.

The side projection of the M2A2 ODS SA provides protection against the 30 mm 3UBR6 round, but does not provide protection against the 3UBR8 shot. The frontal projection provides protection against the 3 mm 8UBR30 round, which is better than that of the BMP-3. At the same time, the side projection with dynamic protection (DZ) blocks provides cover against cumulative grenades of the PG-9VS type, but does not protect against grenades of the PG-7VL type. In turn, the frontal projection with DZ blocks provides protection against cumulative grenades of the PG-9VS and PG-7VL types.

In addition, the M2A2 Bradley ODS SA surpasses the BMP-3 in firepower. Thus, in terms of accuracy, the American single-barrel rapid-fire automatic gun of 25 mm caliber M242 Bushmaster is twice as good as the automatic guns 2A42 and 2A72 of 30 mm caliber, which increases the range. In terms of armor penetration, the BPOS shot of 25 mm caliber is twice as good as the BPSS shot of 3UBR8 of 30 mm caliber.

The American is also ahead in its operational and technical capabilities. Thus, it has much more convenient access to the fighting compartment from the landing compartment. Higher maintainability of the power unit, generator, fighting compartment and gun barrel. Shorter duration of maintenance of the main units and assemblies due to ease of access. Less duration and labor intensity of replacement of the main units and assemblies.

The BMP M2A2 ODS SA also surpasses the BMP-3 in terms of ergonomics. This is due to the larger volume of armored space, the presence of a ramp in the troop compartment, and the absence of structural elements between the commander's and gunner's workstations that would prevent the crew from freely moving from the fighting compartment to the troop compartment.

At the same time, the American is inferior to its “colleague” in terms of dynamism, power reserve, cross-country ability and the ability to overcome water obstacles afloat, as well as thanks to the presence of a 100 mm caliber gun and the ability to destroy enemy manpower from two PKT machine guns.

American M2A2 Bradley ODS SA outperforms BMP-3 – results of tests in Russia


The specialists made recommendations on design solutions that are appropriate for implementation in Russian serial and prospective models of BTVT. Thus, in terms of protection, it was proposed to use protected screens, including in the frontal part, ATGM launchers, ready for direct use, as well as the use of a protective commander's cabin with armored glass during marching operations (conducting observation).

In terms of increasing the firepower of the BMP-3, it was proposed to develop a round with an armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) for 30 mm automatic cannons. Subsequent use in the ammunition load of the 3UBR8 round of 30 mm caliber with an armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot projectile. It was also recommended to develop a new 30 mm automatic cannon with improved characteristics in terms of firing accuracy and armor penetration, ensuring guaranteed destruction of armored vehicles of the M2A2 and M2A3 types, with the introduction of design elements implemented in foreign automatic cannons (barrel stiffeners and other know-how).
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    April 6 2025 21: 42
    Well, at least here it’s honest without embellishment!
    1. +3
      April 7 2025 01: 19
      Not quite. It would be honest to write: "in some parameters the M2A2 Bradley ODS SA is superior to the BMP-3". But it turned out as usual. laughing
  2. +3
    April 6 2025 23: 21
    When looking at the Bradley, the BPM-3 main caliber is apparently not used... and the weight of the enemy when compared is +50%... such a comparison...
  3. -2
    April 7 2025 00: 13
    Where is the Kurganets? Why are they comparing the Bradley with the BMP-3? Or is the Kurganets a top-secret wonder weapon?
    1. +12
      April 7 2025 00: 57
      Kurganets prepares for the parade
    2. +1
      April 8 2025 11: 16
      Kurganets - the paint is being updated. It is polished together with the armata!!! It will march in proud formation at the parade and then maybe it will compete in some other biathlon or army games!!!!
  4. +6
    April 7 2025 00: 47
    Well, what can I say, the BMP is obviously conceptually outdated, now everyone welds on as much armor and nets as possible, the ability to swim turned out to be useless, even tanks became "fortresses" because of drones. The Kurganets is certainly better in many respects, but it costs so much that it is cheaper for the country to churn out an BMP and give birth to new ones.
    1. +3
      April 7 2025 04: 32
      It is useless not only for swimming, but also for landing, for which aluminum armor was made.
      1. +3
        April 7 2025 21: 20
        Bradley is almost all aluminum, there are inserts and composite, I don’t understand why ours don’t use it
  5. +3
    April 7 2025 05: 16
    So what? I understand that the 100 mm cannon is not needed? It is clear that it is time to install the engine forward, and the 30 mm cannon requires modernization, stiffening ribs and so on, high-power shells and tungsten, but where is the solution for this modernization? am
    1. +2
      April 7 2025 20: 56
      The solution is called the BMP "Manul", also based on the BMP-3, but not in the ersatz form, like the "three" itself, which is why it is not very different from the light tank on the basis of which it was developed, and the B-M is a normal solution. Although it will also need to be improved, the current "Dragoons" / "Manuls" are still quite solid, they clearly need some finishing, with a generally correct concept.

      But in general, the sad trend of our military-industrial complex continues, when we, being pioneers in some direction, as in the same BMP, then for many years get stuck due to conservatism in the initial models, which are not modernized and developed for a long time.
  6. +1
    April 7 2025 08: 13
    So it is not entirely correct to compare vehicles accepted into service with a difference of 25 years, it is clear that the BMP 3 is simply outdated, it would be surprising if a vehicle released 25 years later was also inferior in everything... progress does not stand still, new technical solutions, new materials, etc.
    1. +9
      April 7 2025 11: 12
      Quote: Blast
      So it is not entirely correct to compare vehicles that were accepted into service with a difference of 25 years.

      They compare the equipment that is used in battles.
    2. +6
      April 7 2025 16: 24
      Blast,

      What 25 years are you talking about??? Bradley 80th, BMP-3 - 78th.
    3. +3
      April 7 2025 21: 00
      And the Bradley, mind you, was made for 17 years ;) And paradoxically, it is still better than our officially newest serial IFV. And this image under consideration is far from the newest, and average news, so to speak, in the American army itself, the Bradley is much more modernized.

      Here is another thing, that BMP-3 was initially made according to ersatz scheme, on the basis of light tank, i.e. initially not according to the correct BMP scheme, but in order to be faster and cheaper. At the same time there are the same Manuls/Draguns, which qualitatively use the BMP-3 base, but in the series they were not, and still are not
  7. -6
    April 7 2025 08: 54
    There is no reason not to trust the experts' conclusions. But there is one small BUT. These are vehicles of different classes. The BMP-3 is an infantry fighting vehicle with the appropriate infantry support weapons (a 100 mm caliber barrel and HE ammunition for it). And the M2A2(3) is practically a tank destroyer with a bonus in the form of a troop compartment. Moreover, it is of a heavy class (weight is greater than that of a medium tank). And against manpower, the M2 is useless with its 30 mm cannon, albeit super-duper rapid-fire. The experts, obviously, to please no one knows who, decided to compare the warm with the soft.
    1. +4
      April 7 2025 14: 16
      Quote: k7k8
      There is no reason not to trust the experts' conclusions. But there is one small BUT. These are vehicles of different classes. The BMP-3 is an infantry fighting vehicle with the appropriate infantry support weapons (a 100 mm caliber barrel and HE ammunition for it). And the M2A2(3) is practically a tank destroyer with a bonus in the form of a troop compartment. Moreover, it is of a heavy class (weight is greater than that of a medium tank). And against manpower, the M2 is useless with its 30 mm cannon, albeit super-duper rapid-fire. The experts, obviously, to please no one knows who, decided to compare the warm with the soft.

      Who told you it's useless against infantry? In Iraq, one Bradley destroyed half a company of Iraqis thanks to its thermal imaging when they tried to get within range of an RPG
      1. -2
        April 7 2025 17: 34
        Calm down, and read what you're answering. And, at the same time, carefully read the table from the article. You'll learn a lot of interesting things.
        1. 0
          April 8 2025 12: 59
          Quote: k7k8
          Calm down, and read what you're answering. And, at the same time, carefully read the table from the article. You'll learn a lot of interesting things.

          I see that you weren't taught the rules of politeness as a child. You were taught some kind of gibberish.
          1. 0
            April 8 2025 17: 22
            Unfortunately, with you, Cypso people, it can't be done any other way.
  8. +4
    April 7 2025 16: 20
    I don't know what kind of author is writing all this here.

    No one ever doubted that Bradley was better defensively.
    1. It is heavier and better protected.
    2. She has homework.
    3. The Bradley cannon, although 25 mm, has a BPS. And is more accurate.

    BMP-3 quietly cries on the sidelines.
  9. +1
    April 7 2025 20: 15
    I agree with the commentators who pointed out the different weight of the BBM, in general, SVO showed that the concepts of tanks and BBM of the 20th century are outdated in principle, and the terrible barbecues prove that the ingenuity of ordinary soldiers is better than the knowledge of "specialists" from the research institute, well, why is there an NSVT on a tank? Because this is the only air defense of the tank... The Israelis shot tanks from helicopters like in a shooting gallery, the same is aggravated by primitive, relatively slow-moving drones, so it is necessary as the experts wrote here
    1 develop a new projectile for a 30mm cannon, but since the cannon is rifled, it will probably be a shot projectile for a rifled cannon, but a projectile that turns into a cloud of buckshot after leaving the barrel? a line of projectiles selected by a chip computer that evaluates the range to the target and, accordingly, the type of ammunition needed, an automatic loader, with the ability to select the desired ammunition?
    2 or a rangefinder sensor in the projectile itself indicating the moment of rupture on the buckshot? is this practically a 30 mm caliber ATGM? or a 100 mm caliber? a difficult but solvable task,
    3 or we create a quadruple shotgun of 12 gauge, with automatic aiming, both for BBM and for tanks with remote control,
    4 It is not practical to make the BMP heavier than the Bradley, then add a troop compartment to the tank, and a 100 mm cannon is an attempt to hang more of everything and anything, tanks have cannons, and the BMP is for the fast and safe delivery of soldiers to trenches and shelters, and not for frontal infantry strikes, however, 100 mm can be used for ATGM air defense (anti-drone and anti-helicopter with a burst into grapeshot when approaching the target), then "what hinders us will help us", the obvious disadvantages of the Bradley are weight and height, although it is possible to work on improving the armor of the BMP, but rather not with aluminum, but with Kevlar and anti-cumulative means
  10. +5
    April 7 2025 20: 21
    As expected! A huge advantage in sailing on water. Especially in the steppes of Donbass, where there is no water. The main thing is that no one has ever tried to come up with anything other than stupid variations on the theme of the BMP 1, which was disgraced in Afghanistan.
    1. 0
      April 8 2025 17: 26
      Mykolo, all Soviet military equipment was developed for combat operations in the European theater of military operations. And there are countless rivers there. So the BMPs were developed correctly. And there are plenty of rivers in the Donbass. The ability to float was included to overcome water obstacles. And the development was carried out taking into account the realities of those times.
  11. -1
    April 8 2025 20: 41
    The M2A2 ODS SA infantry fighting vehicle is superior to the BMP-3 in terms of projectile and bullet resistance

    Against what shells/bullets? At what distances? At what angles? Why the hell is a research institute evaluating weapons if there are other agencies for that? Why on earth would a state research institute publish a "report" in the midst of military action that is like a balm for the ears of enemy propaganda? Why is it written as if the authors tried to copy the style of the real thing, but still screwed up?
  12. -1
    April 8 2025 20: 48
    The M2A2 ODS SA IFV is superior to the BMP-3 in terms of firepower:
    The accuracy of the 25mm M242 automatic cannon is 2 times greater than that of the 30mm 2A42 and 2A72 automatic cannons, which increases the effective firing range

    With what shells? At what distance? Single? In bursts? Duration of bursts? Why does this "report" look like "Barenskoye is better because it is better, don't you dare rejoice, Vanya!"?
  13. -1
    April 8 2025 20: 53
    In principle, everything is absolutely clear with the "report" already here. Well, where would we be without the traditional ... squatting in reverse.
  14. 0
    April 14 2025 09: 31
    It is better in terms of protection and penetration except for 10 mm, but it loses in terms of performance and in general the best is the enemy of the good and ours is for the Scythian war and theirs is for the frontal ramming attack typical for Europe