M2 / M3 Bradley

M2 / M3 Bradley
M2 Bradley
General properties
crew	3 (commander, driver, gunner) + 6 infantrymen
length	6.55 m
width	3.28 m
height	3.38 m
Dimensions	32.66 t
Armor and armament
Armor	Aluminum / spaced armor
Main armament	1 × 25 mm automatic cannon M242 Bushmaster
Secondary armament	1 × 7.62 mm M240 machine gun , 1 × TOW launcher with 2 barrels
agility
drive	8-cylinder diesel engine Cummins VTA-903T 600 HP
suspension	Torsion bar
Top speed	61 km / h
Power / weight	18.4 hp / t
Range	400 km

The M2 Bradley IFV ( English I nfantry F ighting V ehicle , literally translated: infantry combat vehicle) is an armored personnel carrier of the US Army , which was developed in the 1970s by the Food Machinery Corporation and delivered to the armed forces from 1981. The technically almost identical M3 Bradley CFV ( Cavalry Fighting Vehicle , German  cavalry combat vehicle ) is used as a reconnaissance tank . The tank is named after the US General Omar N. Bradley . In addition to the USA, the Bradley is also used by the armed forces of Saudi Arabia and Lebanon . Since the first units were put into service in May 1981, a total of 6,785 units have been produced, making the Bradley one of the most built armored personnel carriers in the world. The models were subjected to several increases in combat value in order to keep them technically up-to-date and to adapt them to the changed threat situation of the 21st century.

history

initial situation

In the early 1960s, the US Army used the M113 to transport infantry under protection from fragments, shrapnel and hand weapons on the battlefield. This model did not allow the infantrymen housed in the rear of the tank to observe the battlefield or use their hand weapons, so that they were cut off from what was happening outside the vehicle. In the combined arms skirmish , aluminum armor increasingly offered inadequate protection against anti-tank weapons, battle tanks and anti-tank mines.

Furthermore, American military plans for a possible conflict with the Soviet Union in Central Europe expected the use of weapons of mass destruction . In the absence of an NBC protection system, the M113 offered its crew, in particular the shooter standing in the open roof hatch on the machine gun, protection only through their personal NBC protective equipment . All of these factors put the infantrymen in the rear of the vehicle, who were aware of these shortcomings, under considerable psychological pressure. Most recently, it was already foreseeable that the speed of the M113 would not be sufficient to keep up with the battle tank 70 currently under development .

An XM723 prototype is unloaded from a YC-15 .

Because of these issues, the Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) program was launched in 1964 to develop a vehicle that would be more agile, better armored, and better armed than the M113 to carry combined arms combat with the new main battle tank to be able to. At the same time, the infantrymen in the rear should be able to use their handguns from the vehicle and observe the battlefield, also in order to reduce the psychological pressure. Since the development of a new vehicle, the MICV-70, would probably have taken ten years, an interim solution based on existing vehicles should be introduced. This interim solution was called XM701 or MICV-65 and used in the bath components of the self-propelled guns M107 and M110 . In 1966 the program was discontinued due to budget cuts (funds were transferred to the Vietnam War budget) and some shortcomings. The three main shortcomings were the poor mobility in the field, the high weight and the width of the tub. Due to its size and weight, the vehicle could not be transported in either the C-130 Hercules or the C-141 Starlifter , which prevented it from being quickly moved to war zones. Research and development continued after tests with the prototype showed that the basic concept of the vehicle made sense. The MICV-70 program was then renamed XM723. The catalog of requirements for the vehicle stipulated that the advantages of the XM701 should be integrated into an overall concept that was acceptable to the Army. One study indicated that the most useful design was a tracked vehicle with aluminum armor with 12 soldiers as a crew and a 20 mm cannon as armament.

The XM723

The Vietnam War reinforced the need for a new armored personnel carrier . During the fighting against the Viet Cong it became even clearer that the soldiers had to be able to use their hand weapons from the vehicle, as attacks by the infantrymen without the protection of the armor of the vehicle often resulted in high losses. The US Army realized that an infantry fighting vehicle with better armament, better armor and the ability for infantry to fight from inside the vehicle was urgently needed. With the advent of a new generation of armored personnel carriers at the end of the 1960s, the M113 was technically and tactically inferior to new models such as the Marder or the BMP-1 . The Food Machinery Corporation (FMC, today BAE Systems ) therefore received an order in 1967 to develop an armored personnel carrier based on the M113. This prototype with the designation XM765 was externally very similar to the M113. The Army tried this vehicle while also considering using the Marder. Ultimately, she withdrew from both models; the XM765 model proved to be inadequate due to its insufficient level of protection, the martens due to insufficient mobility, the non-existent swimming ability and high costs. However, since the XM765 showed satisfactory approaches, the companies Chrysler Corporation (now General Dynamics Land Systems ), FMC and Pacific Car and Foundry should submit proposals for a new vehicle. They were given the task of armoring the new vehicle better, motorizing it to a higher speed and making it floatable. Furthermore, the armament should consist of a 25-mm cannon in a one-man tower and the strength should be nine soldiers who should also be able to fight from inside the vehicle. The armor was supposed to offer protection against weapons with a caliber of 23 mm at the front and against 14.5 mm at the sides and rear, as well as against splinters from 155 mm artillery shells. The layout of the vehicle was based heavily on that of the BMP-1. The projected unit cost at this point in time was $ 151,575.

In November 1972, the prototype from FMC, which was based on the LVT7 , was awarded the contract. The first prototype was completed in December. A total of 16 prototypes were to be provided for training purposes and fire tests. In deviation from the requirements, the vehicle could only transport eight infantrymen with equipment. They could use their hand weapons through shooting hatches from the inside. The armament consisted of 20-mm automatic cannon -M139 and a coaxial machine gun of caliber 7.62 mm, which were housed in a small one-man turret. The automatic cannon was only an interim solution; Two 25 mm cannons from Ford Aerospace / Oerlikon and Hughes were available for series production. However, both weapons were still in development. This prototype of the vehicle was already very similar to the production version of the M2.

While the prototypes were being produced, the Army began looking for a new reconnaissance vehicle to replace the M114 . Various unsuccessful projects to develop a successor had been discontinued. Since there were not enough funds available for the development and production of a completely new vehicle and since the XM723 contained some aspects that corresponded to the catalog of requirements for the reconnaissance tank, the XM723 was also selected for the role of a reconnaissance tank. Since two branches of service would benefit from the vehicle, the project gained in importance. At the same time, however, the requirements also increased, since two different application profiles had to be combined in one vehicle. Initial plans provided that the armored personnel carrier version should keep the one-man turret, while the armored personnel carrier version should use a two-man turret in order to give the commander a better overview. At the same time, the hull of the reconnaissance tank was to be modified in order to be able to accommodate extensive observation and communication equipment. However, as the Army leadership quickly realized that these changes would greatly increase the cost of the project, these demands were waived. Because of this, after the prototypes had been completed in August 1976, a commission of inquiry headed by General Richard Larkin was given the task of critically assessing the project. On the basis of this assessment, the US Army commission made the following suggestions:

• The equipping of both variants with a two-man tower to give the commander a better overview and to make the vehicle easier to drive.
• Equipped with the TOW system and a 25mm cannon, as anti-tank guided missiles had proven very effective during the Yom Kippur War .
• Attachment of a TOW launcher with two missiles on the left side of the tower.
• Retention of the shooting hatches.
• Despite the increased weight, the vehicle should still be buoyant.
• The vehicle should retain the previous level of protection.

The conversion to a larger tower was very controversial within the Army, as the sitting strength was further reduced due to the increased space requirement of the tower and the buoyancy could only be maintained by an additional swim collar due to the increased weight. However, the advantages of the better overview for the commander were decisive for this variant. In particular, the reconnaissance version of the vehicle should benefit from this. The also very controversial decision to use the same vehicle for two different tasks was made on the basis of tactical considerations: The use of the same vehicle for reconnaissance and mechanized infantry should make it difficult for enemy forces to determine the difference between advance and main forces during an attack.

controversy

FMC received the order to adapt the design of the vehicle to the requirements. In March 1977, the program was renamed XM2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle for mechanized infantry and XM3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle for tank reconnaissance . The unit cost, which increased to $ 338,000 as a result of the recommended changes, prompted Congress at the same time, which challenged the entire concept of the vehicle, which was designed in the early 1960s. Some senators considered the vehicle redundant because of its relatively low level of protection. A heavier vehicle with a level of protection comparable to the XM1, later the M1 Abrams , is a more modern alternative. The height of the vehicle was also criticized: At 3.38 m, it towered over the XM1 by almost half a meter. As a result, the benefits of continuing the project were negotiated before the congress. Defenders of the project, including General William DePuy , argued that an attack by the Soviet Union on West Germany would primarily require highly mobile units with high firepower in order to be able to quickly establish new focal points during an ongoing battle that could stop the Soviet peaks in attack. At the same time, the armor should be sufficient to withstand massive artillery fire, as was practiced in preparation for an attack in World War II. DePuy justified the height of the vehicle with the necessary ground clearance to achieve adequate cross-country mobility and the necessary height of the fighting compartment inside the vehicle. Most recently, DePuy stated that the previously used M113 was in no way competitive with modern armored personnel carriers. As a result of the hearing, Congress decided that the project should be continued, but with special attention to further costs. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was also tasked with a critical review of the program.

GAO's final report contained many criticisms, including the lack of coordination between the two projects, XM1 and XM2 / 3, even though both vehicles were supposed to lead the battle together. The XM2 had poorer cross-country mobility and lower acceleration than the XM1, which made it difficult to interact in battle. The low level of protection and high silhouette were also criticized, as the XM2 would face the same threats as the XM1, but was more vulnerable and easier to hit. The high technical complexity of the vehicle was another point of criticism, as this would require a high level of maintenance and a very good level of training on the part of the crew. Most recently, the necessity of swimming ability was questioned, as in Central Europe only 3% of all bodies of water require this ability and the XM1 was not buoyant, which would have made it difficult or impossible for the two vehicles to work together across bodies of water. The final GAO recommendations to Congress consisted of two main questions:

• Can the change requests, especially considering the advanced stage of development, be integrated into the concept at an acceptable cost?
• Can a doctrine be developed that will allow both the XM1 and XM2 to display their advantages on the battlefield without interfering with the other vehicle?

Based on the criticisms of this report, further funding for the XM2 / 3 program for the budget year 1979 was suspended, which led to heated discussions between the opponents and the supporters of the project in Congress. As of February 1979, further hearings were then held before Congress, which should decide on the future of the program. This time the project manager for armored combat vehicles of the US Army, General Stan Sheridan, was also heard. The general outlined the Army's opinion of the project, stating that a replacement for the M113 was needed more urgently than ever, as it would not have even come close to fighting the XM1. Sheridan particularly emphasized the high firepower of the vehicle and the higher level of protection compared to the M113. The Army believed the off-road capability and acceleration were sufficient to keep up with the XM1, especially as the development process had progressed since the GAO recommendations were announced. The high technical complexity, according to Sheridan, was the price for the high combat value of the vehicle.

Troop trials and series production

FMC continued to develop the prototypes despite the uncertain future of the project. After the requirements had been integrated into the overall concept, the first prototypes were handed over to the Army in April 1978. In addition to the required changes, the engine's output had also been increased to 500 hp in order to maintain the mobility of the vehicle in view of the increased weight. The first troop attempts began in August 1978, despite the fact that the M139 automatic cannon was still in use, which was only intended as an interim solution. In October, the further funding was approved by Congress and the previously canceled funds made available again, on the condition that the first series vehicles should be handed over to the troops by May 1981. In January of the following year the final main armament was determined, the choice fell on the 25-mm automatic cannon whose manufacturer was originally McDonnell Douglas. Today it is manufactured by Alliant Techsystems (ATK). After equipping the prototypes with the new weapon, further troop tests were carried out, which uncovered various weak points in the area of ​​the TOW launcher and the target optics. Addressing these vulnerabilities increased the planned unit cost to $ 557,000. Army officials still considered the vehicle to be very cost-effective, given the significantly increased combat value compared to the M113. In December 1979, the type was classified as a reconnaissance and armored personnel carrier and at the same time the name was changed to M2 and M3 Bradley. The M3 was originally to be named M3 Devers (after General Jacob L. Devers, who died in 1979 ); However, since the vehicles only differ in details, it was decided to use a common name. The first production vehicles were handed over to the troops in Fort Hood in May 1981 . Between 1980 and 1995, a total of 6,785 vehicles were produced, 400 of them for Saudi Arabia . From 1986 the tank was subjected to several increases in combat value, the current version is the M2A3. The M2 has been involved in all major US military operations since its inception, including the Second Gulf War and the Iraq War .

The factory price for an M2A3 is approximately $ 3.166 million.

technology

Armament

Main armament

An M242 Bushmaster with a transmitter of the MILES weapon training system.

The main armament of Bradley consists of a 25 mm automatic cannon M242 bus master with Doppelgurtzuführung , the single shot or continuous fire with a theoretical cadence may be from 100 or 200 rounds / minute use up. The cannon is capable of firing various types of ammunition, including APDS , APFSDS and HEI ( H igh E xplosive I ncendiary) projectiles with tracer. The APDS ammunition is used to combat armored targets. It consists of a sub-caliber tungsten projectile that is encased in a sabot . At a distance of 1,600 m, it penetrates about 5 cm of armor steel. From the very beginning, the APDS ammunition was designed to penetrate the front turret armor of the BMP-1 to a distance of more than 800 m, as this represents the effective combat range of the BMP-1. This type of ammunition has now been replaced by APFSDS ammunition of the type M919, a sub-caliber, wing-stabilized arrow projectile made from depleted uranium . It has a greater range and improved penetration properties. Therefore, heavily armored vehicles and aircraft are fought with this ammunition. The effective range is 2500 m, the penetration capability is kept secret by the Army. HE ammunition is explosive / incendiary ammunition that is used to combat unarmored targets. HEI ammunition is used against soft targets such as enemy soldiers or lightly armored vehicles. This explodes on impact with a target and creates a fragment cloud and burning material within a radius of five meters. The maximum range is 3000 m (self-destructing distance), but the accuracy drops significantly from 1600 m.

The ammunition is fed from two feed containers in the tower, one of which is loaded with 70 cartridges of armor-piercing ammunition and the other usually with 230 cartridges of HEI ammunition. In the M2 a further 600 cartridges in a mission-specific composition are carried as reserve ammunition in the hull; the M3 carries 1200 cartridges as reserve ammunition. Refilling the feed containers in the turret by the commander and gunner takes about three minutes.

The rifle cases are automatically ejected from the turret to avoid excessive smoke and heat build-up inside the turret. The entire weapon system is fully stabilized and can therefore also be used while driving. The tower has an electric drive and can be rotated 360 °; a complete turn takes about 6 seconds. In an emergency, aiming the main weapon and pivoting the turret can also be done manually. The main weapon has a vertical range of −10 ° to + 60 °. The entire elevation range of 70 ° enables the Bradley to lead the fire fight from positions with steep inclines or slopes. The power for the drive is provided by a 28 V generator, which is powered by the Bradley's engine. When the engine is switched off, four batteries are used.

The barrel of the weapon is equipped with a slotted muzzle brake that reduces recoil by about 15%. The latest version of the M242 on the M2A3 and M3A3 is chrome-plated on the inside of the barrel, which significantly increases the life of the weapon. The entire ammunition supply of the weapon can be fired in rapid continuous fire without overheating the weapon.

The individual types of ammunition have the following performance characteristics:

Cross section of an M919 cartridge. Sub-caliber sabot arrow bullet with wing control.

designation	M791 APDS-T	M919 APFSDS-T	M792 HEI-T
V 0 :	1345 m / s	1385 m / s	1100 m / s
Flight time
at 1000 m:	0.8 s	0.8 s	1.1 s
at 1500 m:	1.2 s	1.2 s	2.2 s
at 2000 m:	1.7 s	1.6 s	3.6 s
at 2500 m:	2.2 s	2.1 s	5.3 s
Cartridge weight:	458 g	454 g	501 g
Projectile weight:	134 g	96 g	185 g
Maximum effective range:	2000 m	2500 m	3000 m

Secondary armament

On the right-hand side of the turret there is also a coaxial M240 machine gun in the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO caliber . The cases are also automatically ejected from the tower. The MG can be fired electrically or manually by the commander or the gunner. It is used to combat infantry and unarmored vehicles and to hold down enemy positions.

An M2 fires a TOW guided missile.

The TOW system is folded down during the journey and rests on the left side of the tower. To use the tank must stop, whereupon the starting device is raised by means of an electric drive and is ready to fire. With it, targets at a distance of 65 m to 3750 m can be fought in all weather conditions. In the armored launcher there are two guided missiles that can be fired one after the other, in the M2 another five are carried as a reserve. Due to its smaller crew, the M3 carries ten reserve missiles. For reloading, the starting device is brought to its highest point in order to give a soldier in the combat area the opportunity to reload the device from behind through the roof hatch. After the completion of Operation Desert Storm, many of the Bradley's gunmen complained about the slow speed at which the launcher was raised, as the tank was immobile during this time and made an easy target. Furthermore, guided missiles were often fired at targets that were out of range because the vehicle did not have a range finder at that time. For camouflage in combat or during Absitzphase are two electrically-fire smoke grenade launcher systems available, each with four smoke grenades are stocked. The two launchers are attached to the front of the tower on the left and right of the main weapon. They can be used to create an opaque smoke curtain in front of the vehicle within three seconds.

When dismounted, the M2 infantry squad can use carried weapons such as the Javelin system for anti-tank defense. During the mounted fight the soldiers up to variant M2A1 can fight with M231 rifles (a shortened version of the M16 ) through the side and rear mounted spherical covers , from version M2A2 only the rear hatches can be used. The soldiers can only suppress fire during the mounted fight , as accurate aiming with the M231 through the shooting hatches is not possible.

Drive and drive

An engine during maintenance.

The A3 version of the Bradley is a 600 horsepower, water-cooled diesel engine with eight cylinders and turbocharging driven. The engine has a displacement of 14.8 l and weighs 1112 kg. The maximum output of 440 kW is achieved at a speed of 2600 rpm. The maximum torque of 1340 Nm is available at a speed of 2350 rpm. The power is transmitted via an automatic hydromechanical transmission with three gears. The transmission takes care of braking, steering and changing gears. The engine and gearbox are combined into one block, which makes it much easier to replace them under combat conditions. The fuel tanks hold 662 liters. Diesel or JP-8 is usually used as fuel .

The chain drive consists of six rubber-tyred rollers on each side. The drive wheel is in the front. Slack in the chain is prevented by three support rollers on each side. The front and rear rollers only support the chain on the inside, the middle rollers support both the inside and the outside. The suspension is provided by torsion bars and shock absorbers that are attached to the first, second, third and sixth rollers. The 53 cm wide chain consists of 84 chain links on the left and 82 links on the right side, which are equipped with replaceable rubber pads. The chain rests on the floor for a length of 391 cm.

Armor

Comparison between the turret armor of an early M2 / M3 (left) and a later variant (right, A2 / A3) with additional steel armor.

The Bradley's self-supporting tub is made from welded aluminum alloy 5083, which contains zinc and magnesium . The alloy 7039 was also used on the sides, which has better protective properties against armor-piercing ammunition. In newer versions this has been replaced by alloy 7017. With the same weight, aluminum offers better armor protection than steel armor, but must be about three times the thickness. However, since the outer dimensions of the vehicle could not be increased at will, the aluminum armor only offers about a third of the protection that steel armor of the same thickness would offer. To ensure additional protection, spaced armor was also attached to the sides. This consists of two approximately 6.4 mm thick steel plates with a 2.54 cm gap between them. To protect against mines, a 9.5 mm thick steel plate is attached in the front third of the lower hull. The tower is also made of welded aluminum with riveted steel plates. The armor of the original version and the A1 version of the Bradley protected the tank from fire from weapons up to 14.5 mm caliber and fragments from 155 mm artillery shells.

From version A2 the armor protection of the Bradley has been increased considerably. Additional massive steel armor was attached to the tub front, the sides and the tub floor. The stern and the upper part of the drive were additionally protected by steel spaced armor. The turret was also given steel armor at the front and sides, and a steel storage basket was attached to the rear, which also served as additional armor. From this version, the tank was also protected against fire from weapons up to 30 mm caliber . The additional armor provided attachment points for reactive armor elements.

During the Iraq war it turned out that the Bradleys are very sensitive to attacks with incendiary agents, since aluminum loses its strength at relatively low temperatures of around 400 ° C. Internal fuel or ammunition fires in particular pose a hazard. If the crew does not succeed in extinguishing such a fire quickly, the entire hull loses its load-bearing effect, with the result that the tank literally collapses.

Optics and sensors

An integrated sight unit in a factory hall

The commander has three corner mirrors at his disposal for observing the battlefield , which are directed forwards, forwards to the right and to the right. He can also access the gunner's optics via an interface. From version A3 the commander also has his own, independent thermal imaging device . The gunner also has corner mirrors that face forward and to the sides. Its main optics, called Integrated Sight Unit (ISU), have both a daytime and a thermal image channel with four and twelve times magnification. For emergencies, the commander and the gunner have emergency optics with day vision channel and five times magnification. There is a metal construction on the tower roof that allows the commander, if he drives "over the hatch", to roughly aim the weapon at a target. The driver has four corner mirrors that face forward and left. The middle corner mirror can be replaced by a residual light amplifier. From the M2A2 ODS version, the driver has a thermal imaging device that enables a clear view up to around 150 m. The infantrymen in the combat area have corner mirrors that are directed backwards and to the sides.

Management and communication tools

The radio equipment of the Bradley originally consisted of the analog VRC-12- VHF - FM , which was still from the 1960s. The radios in this series were extremely unreliable and had a mean time between failures (MTBF) of just 250 hours. During the first missions in Iraq, some tank crews reported that the radios were inoperative for almost the entire mission. Sometimes the crews had to carry several additional radios with them to replace defective ones, or they used flags to transmit commands. The units were equipped with new SINCGARS systems from 1989, but at the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, only one battalion was equipped with the new devices. The new digital radio had an MTBF of 7000 hours and could be operated in a tap-proof frequency change mode. Up to version A2, the commander could only use the maps he had carried to guide the vehicle, whereby his own position could be determined on the basis of terrain comparisons. During Operation Desert Storm, the units were only able to navigate with the help of civilian GPS devices due to the lack of prominent points in the desert . Starting with version A3, an automatic positioning and navigation system called Positioning Navigation System (PNS) was integrated into the Bradleys. This consists of an inertial navigation system and a GPS receiver. The inertial navigation system continuously determines the position of the vehicle and is updated by the GPS at regular intervals. The position of the vehicle, its direction, waypoints and the like are displayed to the crew on flat screens. The PNS is integrated into the Bradley's fire control system so that the position of targets whose distance from the tank has been determined with the laser is automatically displayed on the screens.

crew

A squad of infantry mounted .

The crew of the M2 consists of a total of nine or ten soldiers: the driver , the commander and the gunner as well as the infantry squad consisting of six, now seven soldiers. The commander and group leader can dismount depending on the situation and then take over the leadership of the infantry squad. The driver sits in the front left of the vehicle under a one-piece hatch next to the engine. He controls the tank according to the commands of the commander, usually choosing the route independently in battle. He is also responsible for maintenance work on the tank. The commander sits on the right side of the tower. He leads the tank, maintains the radio link to the higher management level and clarifies goals. He is also responsible for loading the coaxial machine gun. Up to version A2 it had to support the gunner in determining the distance during the fire fight. The gunner sits on the left in the turret next to the commander. He observes the battlefield and leads the fire fight according to the commands of the commander.

The infantry squad is housed in the rear of the vehicle. Up to version A2 ODS, the six soldiers were housed as follows:

• A soldier is seated to the left of the tower, looking forward.
• A soldier is sitting in the rear left of the combat area , looking inwards.
• Two soldiers are seated in the rear right of the fighting area, looking backwards.
• Two soldiers sit behind the tower, facing forward.

With the A2 ODS version, the seating concept was changed; the individual seats were given up in favor of two fold-down benches in the rear combat area. On each of these three soldiers sit opposite each other, while another soldier sits behind the driver. In this way, on the one hand, the strength of the seats was increased to seven soldiers, and on the other hand, the soldiers can leave the tank much faster. The soldiers can exit and enter the vehicle through a hydraulically operated hatch in the rear, which can be opened and closed within five seconds. The crew of the M3 consists of five soldiers: the driver, the commander, the gunner and two scouts.

Technical specifications

designation	M2 Bradley IFV	M2A1		M2A2			M2A2 ODS				M2A3
Type:	Armored personnel carriers
Crew:	3 + 6						3 + 7
Engine:	8-cylinder diesel engine Cummins VTA-903T with turbocharger
Power:	370 kW at 2600 rpm			440 kW at 2600 rpm
Transmission:	L3 Combat Propulsion Systems HMPT-500 hydromechanical automatic transmission			HMPT-500-3EC TEC
Landing gear:	torsion bar sprung support roller drive
Length over all:	6450 mm			6550 mm
Width over everything:	3200 mm			3280 mm
Height above everything:	3380 mm
Ground clearance:	460 mm
Wading ability :	1200 mm
Trench crossing ability:	2540 mm			2100 mm
Climbing ability:	910 mm			760 mm
Gradeability :	60%
Bank slope:	40%
Combat weight:	22,797 kg			32,072 kg											32,659 kg
Maximum speed road:	66 km / h			61 km / h
Maximum water speed:	7 km / h
Fuel quantity:	746 liters			662 liters
Driving range:	480 km			400 km
Armament:	1 × automatic cannon M242 Bushmaster ; 1 × machine gun; TOW system
Ammunition:	900 cartridges for the automatic cannon; 7 guided missiles; 4400 cartridges for the machine gun

commitment

Mission profile

The M2 was developed to transport a group of infantry under armor protection on the battlefield and to take on reconnaissance tasks. In cooperation with dismounted infantry, it is supposed to carry out suppressive fire and to hold down or destroy enemy battle tanks or other armored vehicles. To do this, it works together with the M1 Abrams main battle tank as part of the Combat of Combined Arms to combat enemy tanks and infantry.

An M2 when crossing a body of water with the help of the swimming collar.

During Operation Desert Storm, combat battalions were formed from two companies M2 Bradley and two companies M1 Abrams, each consisting of 13 vehicles (three platoons with four vehicles each and one vehicle for the company commander). The M1 formed the top during the attack due to their better armor, while the M2 took over the flank protection and could carry out attacks on their flanks when they encountered opposing forces. Since the Iraq war in 2003, the main focus has been on supporting our own infantry forces in urban areas. The M2 provides support and suppression fire with its automatic cannon. There is also the possibility of fighting fortified positions with armor-piercing ammunition or creating burglary sites through building walls. The original M2 version of the vehicle was fully amphibious due to the attachment of a floating collar and was driven in the water by the chains. It took about 30 minutes for the crew to attach the swim collar. From the M2A1 version onwards, buoyancy is only available through the use of several inflatable pontoons, since the swim collar no longer provided sufficient buoyancy due to the increased weight. Without aids, the tank can only wade to a water depth of 1.20 m . For operations under NBC contamination, the driver, the commander and the gunner from version A1 have a built-in air filter system at their disposal; the infantrymen in the combat area are dependent on their own NBC protective equipment , but can still leave the vehicle. The M2 / M3 is available in all versions of the aircraft, C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster air transportable .

The M3 was designed as a reconnaissance tank , but is essentially identical to the M2. The only differences are that there are no infantry troops in the tank and instead ten anti-tank guided missiles are carried. Additional observation equipment is available to the observation soldiers. Its task is the reconnaissance behind enemy lines or the battlefield reconnaissance in front of one's own forces during an attack.

Calls

A Bradley shot down during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq.

The M2 / M3 has so far been used on a large scale during Operation Desert Storm and the Iraq War . In both conflicts it was shown that the vehicle was able to keep pace with the M1 in the attack in order to support it in the fight against weakly and moderately armored targets. With the 25 mm uranium ammunition, armored personnel carriers of the type BMP-1 and BMP-2 could be destroyed, under favorable circumstances, for example when attacking the sides or the rear, even old-style battle tanks such as the T-55. With the help of the TOW missiles, the Bradleys were able to prevail against battle tanks like the T-72 without the help of their own battle tanks. During the Second Gulf War, more Iraqi tanks were destroyed by the M2 than by the M1 main battle tanks. During the fighting, only three M2 were destroyed by enemy fire, another 17 were destroyed by friendly fire . During the Iraq war in 2003, the M2 proved its worth in a similar way. Due to the increased use in built-up areas, the loss figures have meanwhile increased significantly. Between the end of the war and 2006, 50 Bradleys were destroyed by fighting.

The M3 was not particularly popular with reconnaissance units during the 1991 Gulf War. Due to its size, the high volume and the general design as an infantry fighting vehicle, it was not the optimal solution for the needs of the reconnaissance aircraft. Maneuvers in the 1980s had already revealed these problems, so reconnaissance units were equipped with the smaller and quieter HMMWVs . However, since this conversion was not yet completed in 1991, the M3 was still used in its role as a reconnaissance vehicle. Surplus M3s were placed as support for the main battle tanks. However, during the Iraq war in 2003 and the subsequent occupation of Iraq was clear that the HMMWVs not offered the scouts enough protection and did not have enough firepower, so the M3 again for reconnaissance , flank protection and convoy - escorts was used.

Users

Besides the USA, Saudi Arabia is the only state that uses the Bradley. In 1988, Saudi Arabia submitted a purchase application for 200 M2 vehicles, which was approved by the US Congress in the same year. The first two copies were handed over in 1989 for test purposes, the remaining 198 followed in two lots in 1990 and 1991. After the delivery of the first lot, another purchase request for 200 additional vehicles was made, which were also delivered in two lots up to 1993.

future

The US Army plans to equip 30 of the 77 existing brigades with Bradleys as part of the Heavy Brigade Combat Team concept. The corresponding vehicles are to be kept in reserve for another five brigades, which makes a total of 4,900 vehicles. The Army plans to keep the Bradley in service until 2045.

The ATK Gun Systems Company developed a new automatic cannon in 30 mm caliber and a new version of the Bushmaster automatic cannon in 35 mm caliber. This should only be able to fire 50 mm bullets by changing the barrel. Both weapons are suitable for integration into the overall concept, but the US Army is not planning any introduction in the near future.

At the beginning of 2008, two orders worth a total of US $ 24.6 million were awarded to BAE-Systems for the so-called Bradley Urban Survivability Kit (BUSK). 952 M2 and M3 are to be upgraded. The BUSK includes a powerful handheld searchlight for the commander, transparent protective shields for the commander and the gunner when driving over the hatch, a grille protection for the optics and a light, electrically non-conductive structure on the tower roof, around the tower crew and especially the antennas in front of low to protect hanging electrical cables. Furthermore, an additional machine gun is to be installed for the commander, which can be operated under armor protection and is integrated into the fire control system of the A3. Protection against mines and IEDs should be further improved. The upgrade kits for the BUSK can also be installed abroad by Army maintenance personnel and BAE-Systems personnel; it is not necessary to return the vehicle to the USA.

variants

M2 and M3

Original version of the M2.

The original production variant. Not all variants of the TOW could be fired and an ABC air filter system was not yet integrated. The crew was still dependent on the supply of food by the corresponding parts of the company, since no field rations were carried with them. Around 2500 M2 had been produced by the start of production of the M2A1 variant.

M2A1 and M3A1

The A1 variant of the respective vehicles was produced from 1985 and delivered from May 1986. All versions of the TOW could be fired and an ABC air filter system was integrated for the driver, commander and gunner.

Other small changes were:

• Changed fuel system and conversion of the fire extinguishing system from Halon to sodium hydrogen carbonate .
• A padding for the driver's seat.
• Changed controls for the weapon system.
• Simplified lashing straps for equipment.
• Carried field rations .
• Carried camouflage nets .
• Replacement of the water tank with two smaller tanks with a total of the same capacity.
• Replacement of the outdated M47 Dragon anti-tank system with the more powerful Javelin Medium Antiarmor Weapon System .
• Special, height-adjustable seats and extended observation equipment on the M3.
• Elimination of the spherical apertures and improvement of the observation equipment on the M3.

The changes were also referred to as Block I improvements . A total of 1371 vehicles of the A1 version were produced.

M2A2 and M3A2

From 1984, before the implementation of the change in Block I, the US Army commissioned a study to evaluate measures to further increase the survivability of the M2. The result of this study were the following measures: The storage of reserve ammunition for cannons and machine guns was changed in order to reduce the risk of explosion. In order to increase the survivability of the tank and the crew, the turret and hull were provided with reinforced armor, key components in the vehicle interior were armored and the entire interior was lined with fabric mats made of Kevlar in order to reduce the flight of fragments if the armor penetrated . The commander's replacement optics were provided with a splinter protection in order to be more resistant to attacks with hand grenades . The drive has also been improved.

The measures for the additional armor increased the weight of the vehicle to over 30 tons. In order to maintain its mobility, a more powerful motor should be installed, which would also have made it necessary to modify the gearbox and the air filter. Production began in May 1988, but the first 662 A2 version vehicles were still delivered with the old 500 hp engine. The new engine was not installed in all of the following vehicles until May 1989. Attaching the additional armor made it impossible to use the side shooting hatches, only the two hatches in the stern ramp are still usable. The new armor protected the vehicle against projectiles up to 30 mm caliber.

These changes were referred to as Block II improvements . A total of 5212 vehicles were manufactured or upgraded to A2 level.

Bradley M2A2 ODS

As a result of Operation Desert Storm , other small changes were proposed. Above all, emphasis was placed on improved manageability, as the fighting in the Gulf War had shown that navigation in the desert without technical aids was very complicated. For this purpose, a GPS system and a simple friend-foe recognition system were integrated into the electronics. Furthermore, the driver's optics were modified and a defense system against wire-guided SACLOS - first-generation anti-tank guided weapons - was installed. Since many vehicles broke down during the war due to the impact of mines , the packing plan for the equipment was changed again to minimize the risk to the crew.

The first vehicles were delivered in 1995, a total of 1433 vehicles were to be converted. However, this was stopped in 2005 and the ODS concept was then integrated into version A3.

M2A3 and M3A3

Bradley M2A3 with additional reactive armor.

In 1994 the US Army initiated the Bradley Modernization Plan , which aimed to develop the M2A3. With this increase in combat value, the modernization of the electronics was in the foreground. In addition, modern digital displays for the commander, driver and group leader were installed. Improved systems for target acquisition, target tracking and fire control and the integration of a hunter / killer ability should again significantly increase the combat value. An important point here was the integration of a laser rangefinder into the fire control system. Finally, the maneuverability should be optimized, for which new software for the on-board systems, a digital radio system and an independent thermal imaging device were installed for the commander.

From 1997 a small series of 35 vehicles was produced for test purposes, and in 1998 a further 70 vehicles were ordered. Series production of the M3A3 began in 2001 and is currently (2014) still ongoing. All tanks that are still in operation should either be upgraded to A3 or the ODS version.

M6 linebacker

M6 linebacker.

→ Main article : M6 linebacker

The M6 Linebacker served as an anti-aircraft tank in close proximity to its own large formations . The structure is almost completely the same as that of the M2, only the TOW launcher was replaced by a launch device for four Stinger missiles . The M6 ​​is no longer used.

Bradley FIST M7

The M7 was developed as a replacement for the outdated M981 artillery observation tank and has been produced in small numbers since 1997. M2A3 or Bradley M2 ODS are used as base vehicles for the conversion. The M7 is essentially identical to the M2; the only differences are the elimination of the TOW missile launcher, which has been replaced by target location equipment, and the retrofitting of an inertial navigation system .

Bradley AMEV / AMTV

The Bradley Armored Medical Evacuation Vehicle is a medical tank designed to evacuate wounded soldiers quickly and under armor protection from combat situations. Extensive medical equipment is available inside the vehicle in order to be able to stabilize the wounded quickly.

The Bradley Armored Medical Treatment Vehicle is also a medical tank that is primarily designed for treating the wounded. The interior is dimensioned in such a way that the four-person medical team on board can work standing up in order to be able to treat seriously injured persons with the necessary care. A tent can be set up behind the vehicle for longer-term treatments.

literature

• Christopher F. Foss : Jane's Armor & Artillery 2009-2010. Jane's Information Group Inc, ISBN 978-0-7106-2882-4 .
• Christopher F. Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2010–2011. Jane's Information Group Inc, ISBN 978-0-7106-2921-0 .
• Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. Zenith Press 2007, ISBN 978-0-7603-2523-0 .
• Hans Halberstadt: Bradley Company - Europa Militaria No 30 Crowood Press 2001, ISBN 1-86126-425-9 .
• W. Blair Haworth, Jr .: The Bradley and How It Got That Way - Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army. Contributions in Military Studies, No. 180, Westport 1999, ISBN 0-313-30974-4 .
• Rolf Hilmes: Main battle tanks today and tomorrow: Concepts - Systems - Technologies. Motorbuchverlag 2007, ISBN 978-3-613-02793-0 .
• RP Hunnicutt: Bradley: A History of American Fighting and Support Vehicles. Presidio Press 1999, ISBN 0-89141-694-3 .
• Steve Parker: The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Capstone Press 2008, ISBN 978-1-4296-0092-7 .
• Steven Zaloga / Peter Sarson: M2 / M3 Bradley - Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1983–1995. Osprey Publishing , ISBN 1-85532-538-1 .
• Loren B. Thompson, Lawrence J. Korb, Caroline P. Wadhams: Army Equipment After Iraq. Center for American Progress , Washington, DC 2006.

Web links

Commons : M2 Bradley  - Album with pictures, videos and audio files

• M2 Bradley on Military Today
• Bradley at "army.mil" (English)
• M2A3 and M3A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS) at "fas.org" (English)

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. , Pp. 17-22.
2. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. , P. 23 f.
3. ^ W. Blair Haworth, Jr .: The Bradley and How It Got That Way , chapter 5.
4. ^ W. Blair Haworth, Jr .: The Bradley and How It Got That Way , chapter 6.
5. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. , P. 25 f.
6. ^ ^{A b} W. Blair Haworth, Jr .: The Bradley and How It Got That Way , chapter 7.
7. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2010–2011. P. 444.
8. ↑ fas.org Average Unit Cost ( accessed November 11, 2014).
9. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 70.
10. ↑ Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide - M242 25mm Automatic Gun , accessed February 18, 2011
11. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 77.
12. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 40 f.
13. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 69 f.
14. ^ Hans Halberstadt: Bradley Company , p. 26.
15. ↑ Steven Zaloga / Peter Sarson: M2 / M3 Bradley - Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1983-1995. P. 69.
16. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2009-2010. P. 439 ff.
17. ↑ Steve Parker: The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. P. 10 f.
18. ^ The AVF Database , data sheet of the M2. (English, accessed June 7, 2010)
19. ↑ Steven Zaloga / Peter Sarson: M2 / M3 Bradley - Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1983-1995. P. 19.
20. ^ RP Hunnicutt: Bradley: A History of American Fighting and Support Vehicles , p. 289.
21. ^ RP Hunnicutt: Bradley: A History of American Fighting and Support Vehicles , p. 294.
22. ^ Rolf Hilmes: Main battle tanks today and tomorrow: Concepts - Systems - Technologies. P. 374.
23. ↑ www.army-guide.com Section 'Fire Control and Observation' (English, accessed on June 7, 2010).
24. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 44.
25. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 47 f.
26. ↑ Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (PDF; 19.8 MB) Annual Report 2003, p. 59.
27. ↑ Steven Zaloga / Peter Sarson: M2 / M3 Bradley - Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1983-1995. P. 34.
28. ^ The Striker Brigade Combat Team Infantry Bataillon Reconnaissance Platoon (Field Manual No. 3-21.94), Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington (DC), April 18, 2003, Chapters 6-21.
29. ↑ www.army-guide.com Section 'Propulsion' (English, accessed June 7, 2010)
30. ↑ Military Supplies and News, Article: M2 / M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles Section '5' , armedforces-int.com (accessed March 17, 2011).
31. ^ Loren B. Thompson et al .: Army Equipment After Iraq. P. 6.
32. ↑ Steven Zaloga / Peter Sarson: M2 / M3 Bradley - Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1983-1995. Pp. 34-38.
33. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 35.
34. ↑ Michael Green / James D. Brown: M2 / M3 Bradley at War. P. 35 f.
35. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2009-2010. P. 442.
36. ^ Loren B. Thompson et al .: Army Equipment After Iraq. P. 14.
37. ↑ www.army-technology.com section 'BUSK' (English, accessed June 7, 2010).
38. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2010–2011. P. 446.
39. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2009-2010. P. 440.
40. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2009-2010. P. 441.
41. ↑ M2A2ODS / M3A2ODS (Operation Desert Storm) Bradley - Description, technical data, at: 'Globalsecurity.org' (English, accessed on August 15, 2009)
42. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2010–2011. P. 448.
43. ↑ Christopher Foss: Jane's Armor & Artillery 2010–2011. P. 447 f.
44. ↑ www.baesystems.com (English, accessed March 6, 2011).
45. ↑ www.baesystems.com (English, accessed March 6, 2011).

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on March 25, 2011 in this version .