Talk:M2 Bradley/Archive 1

Suggestion for Merge
This artcle should be merged with Bradley Fighting Vehicle. In fact I'm not sure there is anything significantly different--70.49.186.37 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed there were THREE Bradley pages. Due to length, I believe they should be separated.  Even though they are only variants, there is wealth of information on both.  However, I am not against merging.   Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture in the infobox is a M3 CFV and not a M2 IFV. It is actually a M3A2 ODS variant of the CFV Scout1067 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to merge as long as no information on any vehicle is lost. Green547 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Another vote in favor of merging the two articles. -Ramlaen (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to have three separate pages for the Bradley (lots of duplicate information) and support the merge, with most of the information contained in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle being focused on the development. Should the aforementioned article be maintained as the primary page for the Bradley on Wikipedia, with the M2 Bradley and M3 Bradley pages redirecting here. Podlesok86 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/index.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation 8 leads to meaningless link.
The article states that the Bradley killed more tanks than the M1 Abrams, and has a citation. But that citation doesn't mention anything about such a comparison, nor specific kill numbers. 58.178.19.232 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M2 Bradley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928003142/http://defensenewsstand.com/Inside-Defense-General/Insider/menu-id-286.html to http://defensenewsstand.com/Inside-Defense-General/Insider/menu-id-286.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030131745/http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-2003-Bradley.pdf to http://pogo.org/m/dp/dp-2003-Bradley.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

False statement/weak reference.
"By 2007, the Army had stopped using the M2 Bradley in combat, instead favoring more survivable MRAPs.[13]"

This article may not be a bad reference to the Army getting away from M2s in the Iraq war, but it does not mention dates. The reason I am bringing this up is because I served in the Iraq War in 2008 and 2009 with a platoon that included two Bradleys. I'm sure there is a hard date where we stopped using them going into Operation New Dawn, but it's later than Q1 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankerd18 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsupported claim in Combat history
"During the Persian Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams."

The Global Security citation for this claim does not support the claim, either the original link or the archived link. Nor is it supported by the most authoritative resource I've found: "Bradley Is Lethal, but Some System Enhancements Are Desired" in Operation Desert Storm: Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams | U.S. GAO

John Navas (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. But above all, the sentence is meaningless. Vital information is missing. For instance:
 * i) does 'Iraqi armoured vehicles' include IFVs only? If so, one must remember that the main purpose of MBTs is often to fight other tanks, rather than to fight IFVs;
 * ii) how many Bradleys and how many Abrams were there? If one has e.g. 20 M1s and 200 Bradleys one might expect the Bradleys to score more kills.
 * iii) what was this difference in kills? Did Bradleys destroy 70% more armoured vehicles, or 20% more, or 0.4% more? 2.36.89.27 (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:John Navas: I do not agree:
 * with the part that the source cited in the article does not support the claim. I found the sentence that almost verbatim supports it: "The vehicle's reliability, survivability and lethality has surpassed initial expectations. Of the 2,200 Bradleys involved in Operation Desert Storm, only three were disabled. In fact, more enemy armored vehicles were destroyed by Bradleys than by the Abrams Main Battle Tanks!"
 * I didn't find the argumentation for that claim in that source, because it addressed Bradleys only, without comparison with Abrams, but the source from GAO you gave above addresses that (see below).
 * with the part that source GAO you gave above about that some system enhancements are required disproves the claim in the article. Reason (quote from Results in Brief in your source at GAO):
 * "Crews from both the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Abrams tank, as well as other Army personnel, praised the overall performance of the vehicles in the Persian Gulf war. Crews said that the vehicles demonstrated good lethality and mobility. Survivability of the Abrams was perceived as good by the crews, and they felt safer in the Bradley A2 modeIs compared to the older models. Mission capability rates were reported high. Bradley crews identified some problems and desired system improvements, such as a higher reverse speed and a laser range finder. Abrams crews indicated that its range was limited because it frequently had to stop to (1) refuel to compensate for high fuel consumption and faulty fuel pumps and (2) clean air filters due to extremely sandy conditions. ..."
 * From that I conclude
 * Data were collected from crews, not official statistic (source advises that it might follow in another report, which I didn't try to find yet)
 * There were improvements desired both with Bradleys (laser range finder, higher reverse speed) and Abrams (better clean air filters and fuel consumption and fuel management system), and sometimes common to both (see below, where I address parts of Appendixes of your GAO source in a bit more details).
 * Both crews complained about availability of spare parts (including that transportation provided for that couldn't keep with their advance - also a bit more below).
 * I don't see that this part of GAO report disqualifies the Global Security source for the claim you marked with Failed verification in any way - just the opposite: Appendix IV on p.38 and following offers info why it might be so (see below).
 * I also do not completely agree with IP user above (if you create a user name, you shall both be credited for your contributions, and notified about answers to your propositions):
 * the info is not meaningless; but it could be improved with adding some of info you proposed (but for that supporting sources are required; writing without that is WP:OR, so proposal for sources would be very welcome).
 * number of Bradleys involved in Operation Desert Storm was given in the part of the source I cited above; both numbers are cited in Background section on page 2 of the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) report GAONXAD-92-94, the excellent source John Navas gave link to above.
 * "As of February 26, 1991, a total of 2,200 Bradley Fighting Vehicles were in the Persian Gulf area. Of these, a total of 1,730 were assigned to the deployed units, and the remaining 470 Bradleys were held in reserve. Of the 1,730 Bradleys assigned to the deployed units, 834 were the newest mode1 Bradley-the A2 high survivability model. Some Army units that did not have the A2 model Bradley vehicle prior to deploying deployed with older models but were provided the A2 models as they became available. At the same time, a total of 3,113 Abrams tanks were in the Persian Gulf area. Of these, 2,024 tanks were assigned to deployed units, and the remaining 1,089 tanks were held in reserve. Of the 2,024 tanks that were assigned to troops, 1,904 were MlAls, and 120 were Mls. Some Army units deployed with the older model Abrams, but most exchanged their older model Abrams for MlAls once they were in the Persian Gulf."
 * Intro of the source also declares: what is the subject of the report (4 topics required, they addressed 5), and - specifically - that Army agencies were still analysing the data and that those reports may follow. Anyway, there were more Abrams than Bradleys (both in the area and assigned to the units). So, if Bradleys destroyed more opponent's armored vechicles, just relative numbers in the theatre of operations do not explain that.
 * I skimmed (not read in detail) the rest of (42 pages) of that source. Appendixes III and IV addresses issues and problems both Abrams and Bradleys had in common, including obtaining parts that I already mentioned above, inadequate target identification, ineffective and unreliable communication equipment, insufficient navigation systems that finds one's location in desert (only about two per company, or 1 per 6 to 12 vechicles),
 * "from there, p. 35: In some instances, armored units had to communicate with flags and hand signals."
 * Even if Appendix VI describe that both had same problems with slow support wehicles (for supplying spare parts etc., for towing disabled units - by accident or malfunction, not damaged or destroyed by enemy action), the effect was not the same for Bradleys and Abrams.
 * "The performance of vehicles that supported the Bradley and Abrams systems in the Persian Gulf war was inadequate. Crews and commanders reported significant problems with the MSSAl Medium Recovery Vehicle and the Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET). Performance problems stemmed from the fact that neither system was designed to support the Abrams tank."
 * HET were used to move both Abrams and Bradleys from ports to theatre of operations. Because HET were designed and certified for up to 60 tons and Abrams was 70 tons, HET were slow and prone to accidents. GAO, p.39
 * Heavy Equipment Transporters Suffered From Inadequate Numbers and Poor Performance
 * The Army did not have enough HETS and the ones it did have were not reliable. The HET is a large, semitrailer truck designed to transport armored vehicles and equipment weighing up to 60 tons over long distances. U.S. HETS proved to be unreliable when carrying Abrams tanks. Unit mechanics reported that U.S. HETS frequently blew tires, suffered bent axles, and were generally unreliable. According to a representative from the Army Transportation School, the HET'S marginal performance in hauling nearly 70-ton MlAl tanks was not a surprise, since the HET was only designed to carry 60 tons.
 * Similarly: M88Al Tank Recovery Vehicle Deemed Inadequate.
 * "The M88 series recovery vehicle is designed to lift, winch, and tow tanks and other Army fighting vehicles. The initial MS88 was first fielded in 1961 and later upgraded to the current M88Al configuration to be able to tow vehicles weighing less than 60 tons."
 * Conclusions for that part:
 * HET and could deal with Bradleys, but had problems with M1 and M1A2 Abrams (with them unreliable, slow)
 * HET got blown tires, bent axles etc. with Abrams
 * by GAO report, they often used Abrams to tow disabled Abrams to where it could be fixed (and that took both towed and towing unit out of battle).
 * GAO report also reports Abrams problem with refueling (both high consumptions, and problems with transportation of supplies and technical) and vulterability of clogged dust air filters in desert conditions
 * I saw no statistics (by intro it was expected to follow separately), but I expect that because of those problems with Abrams there was greater number of effective Bradleys then Abrams in the theatre, even when absolute number of Abrams was 3000 and Bradleys 2,200 in Persian Gulf area; 1,730 Bradleys were assigned to the deployed units and about 2000 Abrams, Bradleys could be moved much easier and more economicaly (regarding available fuel) with HET, and when disabled (by mechanical problems) much more easily moved to maintenance facility. For that e.g. (from the same GAO report, p.38)
 * "During the war, single M88Als were often unable to recover disabled Abrams tanks. Two closely coordinated M88Al s were usually required to recover and tow a single Abrams. After recovering the tank, the M88Al ‘s top towing speed was about 5 miles per hour. Even at this speed, M88Als often suffered from engine or transmission problems, according to maintenance crews."
 * "Because M88Als lacked sufficient power, speed, and reliability, tanks were often used to recover other tanks. In one brigade of the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), M88Al performance was so poor that more Abrams tanks were towing M88Al s than the other way around. Conducting recovery operations with an Abrams meant that a vehicle designed for combat was being used in a support role. Moreover, tanks can be damaged when recovered by other tanks. For example, at the 1st Armored Division, an Abrams tank being towed by another tank was damaged when heat from the towing Abrams’ exhaust caused a fire, igniting the towed vehicle’s ammunition. Heat shields were developed to protect towed vehicles from towing Abrams’ exhaust. However, according to some crews we spoke with, these shields were not always available."
 * Conclusion for this part, and overall: Because of problems described in this source, that more seriously affected Abrams, Bradleys were actually more available in fight, and that is probably one of the reasons for the claim in Global Security source. But that is not actually and specifically concluded in neither of the sources discussed, so probably can't be used in the article without additional sources (WP:OR). Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Russia captured one
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/captured-ukrainian-m2-bradley-shown-off-on-russian-tv Napalm Guy (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)