Every time they’ve ever faced off. Most notably in the gulf when Bradleys wracked up a bunch of t-72 kills. Alternatively the t-72 has never killed abrams or Bradley in large numbers. That’s why people are so confident saying the American armor is better than the soviet armor
>monkey models
What the fuck do you call this then? >No thermals >No ERA
Western AFV might not be massively better than top of the line Russian T-90M and T-80BVM, but by now they're using way more Soviet era junk than modern refurbishments.
The Abrams are good long term insurance, since it kills the stupid arguments about not supplying them, but they won't arrive for some time.
The Bradleys will go into use very soon and many argue the next phase of warfare through the spring and summer will be decisive.
They've been doing great with everything else. Like most things, you've conflated culture with race.
In any event, the Brads are probably more significant overall, but the Abrams don't really have any substitute if you need one hell of an offensive push - which will still call for the Bradleys.
Given the logistics train involved in supporting either vic, it seems probable that Ukraine will keep them more or less together. What I'm more interested is where they'll be sent.
>the Abrams don't really have any substitute if you need one hell of an offensive push
I think the Abrams is a great tank, but let's be realistic and admit that the Abrams that Ukraine will be getting and the Leo2A6s they're also getting are within +/- 5% of each other, no matter which one you favor.
For that reason even more so, the 100+ Bradleys will be way more impactful. The Bradley is now unquestionably the best IFV in theatre, and there are a lot more of them than M1s.
>What’s the bigger deal for Ukraine, 31 abrams or 110 bradleys
These two in combat without the AH-64 Apache to complete the trifecta makes the effort all for knot
Ah-64 is absolutely not worth the cost on a battlefield dominated by AA.
there are frankly far too many people who think directly taking on Russian air defenses is a worthwhile endeavour, they have stupidly deep reserves of this stuff, intended for use against NATO air forces, you aren't going to meaningfully attrite it with 30 jets.
You can absolutely open up a corridor with precision strikes to precede an offensive action.
This isn't even a novel concept, but an understood one in the west and Ukraine. If you know where enemy AA radars are, and they're difficult to hide, you can lob surface-surface weapons at them. You don't need to SEAD the entire Russian military, just a narrow enough corridor to be useful for a push.
You can absolutely open up a corridor with precision strikes to precede an offensive action.
This isn't even a novel concept, but an understood one in the west and Ukraine. If you know where enemy AA radars are, and they're difficult to hide, you can lob surface-surface weapons at them. You don't need to SEAD the entire Russian military, just a narrow enough corridor to be useful for a push.
Ukraine has 560km range missiles (Shadow Storm) they could, if they knew where to hit, do a lot of damage with those if they got enough of them. Only the S-500 would be able to do anything about it.
Funny how the US used MLRS and M109s to SEAD while AH-64s and A-10(commanded at division level iirc) exploited the corridors to attack the dug in Iraqis.
During Yugoslavia, fowl weather made high altitude bombing impossible, so AH-64s were supposed to go in and destroy ground attacks and the plan was to use MLRS to suppress the enemy AA while the AH-64s were in-route. But the weather cleared up and the fixed wings could drop all the bombs they wanted.
People actually think Russian AA is a bubble you cant even tread near or you die.
>Ah-64 is absolutely not worth the cost on a battlefield dominated by AA.
I dunno. I think Apaches could have tactical use if employed at low altitudes at night, popping up from behind structures or hills to hit targets at long range using their thermal optics.
I think the primary reason Russia hasn't been able to do that is cause their *modern* attack helicopters have garbage thermals that dont allow for proper stand off attacks.
Brads. They’re more than capable of going toe to toe with whatever dogshit rustbuckets the russians are throwing into the grinder, and ferrying 8 infantry a piece means you can move almost 1k infantry across the battlefield safe from artillery (biggest killer in this conflict) to secure whatever breach and deep penetration the brads achieve and exploit
The occupants of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle are certainly not safe from artillery fire. The US Army did an artillery versus armor effectiveness study at Fort Sill Oklahoma and determined that even main battle tanks take enough damage from near strikes from dumb 155 mm shells to be rendered ineffective after an artillery barrage . All the exposed mechanisms of the armored vehicles are damaged. Road wheels, tracks, optics are damaged by nearby artillery shell burst shrapnel. Direct hits on a vehicle are not required to render the armored vehicle combat ineffective although direct hits will certainly disable even MBT's and the crew. People that think that armored vehicles are safe from artillery are not grounded in reality.
How does a cracked road wheel equate to dead infantry. The post you replied to said it will keep the infantry safe from artillery splinters, which it absolutely will
The Bradley completely protects the infantry inside from all artillery that isn’t a direct hit
not that anon but you're all midwits
https://docdro.id/L6YuBRA
How does a cracked road wheel equate to dead infantry. The post you replied to said it will keep the infantry safe from artillery splinters, which it absolutely will
Bradleys and I’ll tell you why. Leopard tanks are being sent which are close enough to abrams anyway. No IFV as good as the Bradley is being sent, at least nine that can match its capabilities. The marders being sent are unstabilized and lack an ATGM, the CV-90s being sent are the variant with the 40mm cannon and no atgms. In all honesty the Bradley could mount an armored assault by itself
>The marders being sent are unstabilized and lack an ATGM
Isn't giving a Marder an ATGM just a matter of pintle mounting a MILAN to the commanders hatch? Not terribly sophisticated, but its also how you mount modern ATGM on most BMP-1/2.
Sure but it’s inferior to the Bradley’s integrated ATGMs in every way. With the Bradley the gunner flips a switch and uses his own sights to fire up to two missiles at a time. A pintle mounted Milan requires either the gunner or VC to expose himself completely to fire the missile. The TOW also has a longer range
Yes. I expect it'll take about 20 minutes until they put their Stugna onto a Marder.
Which will actually allow firing the missile without the commander exposing himself.
>Yes. I expect it'll take about 20 minutes until they put their Stugna onto a Marder.
Which will actually allow firing the missile without the commander exposing himself.
As much as I adore that notion, is there room in the commanders position to place the Stugnas control unit? It's a tad bulky. You'd also need the commanders hatch unbuttoned to run the cables to the launch unit.
Ukraines already been donated some MILANS, so they might be easier to bolt on.
Reality is that 31 Abrams and 110 Brad's is about enough gear for one big offensive. Ukranians cant fight like Americans so they will take losses. So, this shipment by itself is not a game changer.
What is a gamechanger is Ukraine developing the skills to use, operate and maintain these vehicles. Because more shipments will come in the future and they will be easier to get into service. Once America sets up a pipeline to get vehicles from the boneyards to the front, yeah, gunna suck ass to be a mobik in a trench.
Nothing because American weaponry is dogshit.
Bradleys will die to one RPG, Abrams will die to mud.
NOOOOOO DO NOT SEND
WHY DID YOU SEND??? WHY DID YOU SEND???????
So what does that say when Abrams and Bradleys repeatedly defeated their Russian counterparts?
when?
Every time they’ve ever faced off. Most notably in the gulf when Bradleys wracked up a bunch of t-72 kills. Alternatively the t-72 has never killed abrams or Bradley in large numbers. That’s why people are so confident saying the American armor is better than the soviet armor
Iraq had T-72s
t…that doesn’t count
monkey models
>monkey models
What the fuck do you call this then?
>No thermals
>No ERA
Western AFV might not be massively better than top of the line Russian T-90M and T-80BVM, but by now they're using way more Soviet era junk than modern refurbishments.
>brazzers on a tank
soul
100+ leopards
The Abrams are good long term insurance, since it kills the stupid arguments about not supplying them, but they won't arrive for some time.
The Bradleys will go into use very soon and many argue the next phase of warfare through the spring and summer will be decisive.
I would say the Bradley over all.
Bradleys.
Neither because slavs lack the intelligence to use modern equipment properly
They've been doing great with everything else. Like most things, you've conflated culture with race.
In any event, the Brads are probably more significant overall, but the Abrams don't really have any substitute if you need one hell of an offensive push - which will still call for the Bradleys.
Given the logistics train involved in supporting either vic, it seems probable that Ukraine will keep them more or less together. What I'm more interested is where they'll be sent.
Ukrainians WILL use Bradleys as MBTs and you WILL watch webms of them getting lit up by RPGs
>the Abrams don't really have any substitute if you need one hell of an offensive push
I think the Abrams is a great tank, but let's be realistic and admit that the Abrams that Ukraine will be getting and the Leo2A6s they're also getting are within +/- 5% of each other, no matter which one you favor.
For that reason even more so, the 100+ Bradleys will be way more impactful. The Bradley is now unquestionably the best IFV in theatre, and there are a lot more of them than M1s.
americans need to get over themselves and their overpriced shitboxes
No.
All of them are needed
>What’s the bigger deal for Ukraine, 31 abrams or 110 bradleys
These two in combat without the AH-64 Apache to complete the trifecta makes the effort all for knot
Ah-64 is absolutely not worth the cost on a battlefield dominated by AA.
there are frankly far too many people who think directly taking on Russian air defenses is a worthwhile endeavour, they have stupidly deep reserves of this stuff, intended for use against NATO air forces, you aren't going to meaningfully attrite it with 30 jets.
You can absolutely open up a corridor with precision strikes to precede an offensive action.
This isn't even a novel concept, but an understood one in the west and Ukraine. If you know where enemy AA radars are, and they're difficult to hide, you can lob surface-surface weapons at them. You don't need to SEAD the entire Russian military, just a narrow enough corridor to be useful for a push.
Ukraine has 560km range missiles (Shadow Storm) they could, if they knew where to hit, do a lot of damage with those if they got enough of them. Only the S-500 would be able to do anything about it.
>on a battlefield dominated by AA
To be fair the Russian AA has been questionable.
Funny how the US used MLRS and M109s to SEAD while AH-64s and A-10(commanded at division level iirc) exploited the corridors to attack the dug in Iraqis.
During Yugoslavia, fowl weather made high altitude bombing impossible, so AH-64s were supposed to go in and destroy ground attacks and the plan was to use MLRS to suppress the enemy AA while the AH-64s were in-route. But the weather cleared up and the fixed wings could drop all the bombs they wanted.
People actually think Russian AA is a bubble you cant even tread near or you die.
>Ah-64 is absolutely not worth the cost on a battlefield dominated by AA.
I dunno. I think Apaches could have tactical use if employed at low altitudes at night, popping up from behind structures or hills to hit targets at long range using their thermal optics.
I think the primary reason Russia hasn't been able to do that is cause their *modern* attack helicopters have garbage thermals that dont allow for proper stand off attacks.
>all for knot
>trips
The 100M get wasn't enough for you?
>The 100M get
Enlighten me please good sir
>he takes the knot
>all for knot
*naught, anon.
Brads. They’re more than capable of going toe to toe with whatever dogshit rustbuckets the russians are throwing into the grinder, and ferrying 8 infantry a piece means you can move almost 1k infantry across the battlefield safe from artillery (biggest killer in this conflict) to secure whatever breach and deep penetration the brads achieve and exploit
The occupants of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle are certainly not safe from artillery fire. The US Army did an artillery versus armor effectiveness study at Fort Sill Oklahoma and determined that even main battle tanks take enough damage from near strikes from dumb 155 mm shells to be rendered ineffective after an artillery barrage . All the exposed mechanisms of the armored vehicles are damaged. Road wheels, tracks, optics are damaged by nearby artillery shell burst shrapnel. Direct hits on a vehicle are not required to render the armored vehicle combat ineffective although direct hits will certainly disable even MBT's and the crew. People that think that armored vehicles are safe from artillery are not grounded in reality.
Bradleys are protected from artillery splinters. Your sourceless cope won’t change that at all
not that anon but you're all midwits
https://docdro.id/L6YuBRA
That’s an opinion piece about all armor. The fact is infantry riding inside a Bradley are protected against artillery splinters
Only from a certain distance.
At 25m a 155mm shrapnel will probably go right through.
May I see your source
You are literally a retard
A 155 at 25 is deadly to a human but not to any armored vehicle
May I see this report
How does a cracked road wheel equate to dead infantry. The post you replied to said it will keep the infantry safe from artillery splinters, which it absolutely will
The Bradley completely protects the infantry inside from all artillery that isn’t a direct hit
The Bradley's (and some other Western vehicle incoming soon?) will have god-tier thermal optics, no?
Me thinks Ukriane will start attacking only at night and just dig in and wait out the day. Expect their big offensive to launch around a new moon.
kino
Yes. Bradleys and Leo2s come with the full thermal optic package
Well the Bradleys are already in Poland waiting for the Spring. The Abrams won't be there until next years from what it sounds like.
>Bradleys are already in Poland
Not all.
thats not ukraine and its not poland
source: i was there
>battlefield tik tok dance
American-ISIS tactics confirmed
Muscovy sisters….it’s ogre
This picture is cute.
Why the false choice?
Honestly I have no idea, I've never been in the military let alone in a position to have real knowledge of strategic decisions like the one you posed.
Bradleys and I’ll tell you why. Leopard tanks are being sent which are close enough to abrams anyway. No IFV as good as the Bradley is being sent, at least nine that can match its capabilities. The marders being sent are unstabilized and lack an ATGM, the CV-90s being sent are the variant with the 40mm cannon and no atgms. In all honesty the Bradley could mount an armored assault by itself
>The marders being sent are unstabilized and lack an ATGM
Isn't giving a Marder an ATGM just a matter of pintle mounting a MILAN to the commanders hatch? Not terribly sophisticated, but its also how you mount modern ATGM on most BMP-1/2.
Sure but it’s inferior to the Bradley’s integrated ATGMs in every way. With the Bradley the gunner flips a switch and uses his own sights to fire up to two missiles at a time. A pintle mounted Milan requires either the gunner or VC to expose himself completely to fire the missile. The TOW also has a longer range
Yes. I expect it'll take about 20 minutes until they put their Stugna onto a Marder.
Which will actually allow firing the missile without the commander exposing himself.
>Yes. I expect it'll take about 20 minutes until they put their Stugna onto a Marder.
Which will actually allow firing the missile without the commander exposing himself.
As much as I adore that notion, is there room in the commanders position to place the Stugnas control unit? It's a tad bulky. You'd also need the commanders hatch unbuttoned to run the cables to the launch unit.
Ukraines already been donated some MILANS, so they might be easier to bolt on.
Bradley's by far. Ideally, they would get 300 Bradley's instead of all the various other Western IFVs.
Probably the Bradleys. Abrams can vary greatly they are also maintenance heavy. There are a lot of options to mix up the roles of Bradleys as well
Reality is that 31 Abrams and 110 Brad's is about enough gear for one big offensive. Ukranians cant fight like Americans so they will take losses. So, this shipment by itself is not a game changer.
What is a gamechanger is Ukraine developing the skills to use, operate and maintain these vehicles. Because more shipments will come in the future and they will be easier to get into service. Once America sets up a pipeline to get vehicles from the boneyards to the front, yeah, gunna suck ass to be a mobik in a trench.