Talk:Bradley Fighting Vehicle

M2A3

M2A3 redirects to here, despite the fact that this page never mentions the M2A3. globalsecurity.org has a page on it.

M2A3 is a BFV. 75.15.186.175 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Armour

Does anyone know about the armour thickness of the M2 Bradley?chubbychicken 07:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the thickness but I do know that it is a compressed aluminum alloy, as for the reactive armor I'd perfer not to get into the specifics just to say that it defeats low yield projectile explosives I.E. RPG's

It is spaced laminate armor composed of rolled (not pressed) aluminum (approx 40mm) and rolled steel (approx 20mm) armor, exact figures depends on armor location, designed to stop up to 30mm APFSDS round.--83.237.166.159 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The A0 series armor protects the vehicle against 14.5 mm AP. This statement is true for side armor only.--91.77.219.82 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

TOW/transmission

"The M2A0 was can be identified by its standard TOW missile system and 500-horsepower engine with manual transmission."

If you can look at a Bradley and identify the model by this, you must be psychic. The TOW missile changed, but there are no apparent changes to the launcher. The Bradley has always had a automatic transmission- made by Cummings as I recall. --67.129.240.243 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) --Gadget850 ( Ed) (must have got logged out)

The easiest way to visually identify an A0 variant is the bustle rack on the rear of the turret. On the A0 the rack wall is anglged at around 30-40 degrees back into the turret. The later versions are straight up/down to allow more storage and easier retrieveal of externally stored gear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCFalco(ret) (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

suggested move (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

i suggest we move this to "bradley fihgting vehcials" as the artical refers to the M2 and M3.(Esskater11 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Comment/Support: I suggest we move this page to "M2/M3 Bradley" or "M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle" rather than that suggested. Technically the M2 is the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and the M3 is the Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV). To clarify the point, I support the name change, but to the name I suggested instead of simply "Bradley Fighting Vehicles." You wouldn't suggest moving say "M16 rifle" to "M16 rifles" to cover its subvariants. -- Thatguy96 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

support This article also covers the M6, M7 and other variants. There is not enough difference there to warrant a fork to a new article. Bradley fighting vehicles does make sense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

so far it seems noon e objects but im gona leave it to smeone tohchange it(Esskater11 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

The new name is non-intuitive and the use of a plural does not follow Wikipedia convention. However, your juvenile action of moving the page (to a mis-spelled new name) after a whole 3 days of discussion are a fait-accompli as it can't be moved back without an admin. Well done, editors of your skill and judgement are what make Wikipedia what it is today. Riddley 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm going to be equally arrogant and just change it again hehe. -- Thatguy96 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you for being an dick and not politley correct me, i made an honest mistake i was just trying to help. (Esskater11 02:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good God, stop acting like children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.132.20 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Burton Controversy

It seems to me that the whole 'live fire' testing hubub was rather glibly mentioned in the article considering its importance at the time (combined with other similar glitches with different programs). The subsequent throwaway line about the vehicle's survivability (which was displayed in the Gulf) would be disputed by Burton who, in his book, refers to a number of changes that were made to the BFV. These modifications, he argues, are a big part of the reason for success in the field. I think it might be useful to take the small mention of this part of development and expand it into its own section, and I'll do that a bit later on unless anyone has any particular objections... it'll probably take awhile though, I'll have to find all my docs on my hard drive that I used for a project involving the BFV before... Epthorn 19:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article currently has the statement, "Tests showed that the Bradley, in its initial version, had to be totally redesigned in order to protect the life of soldiers when hit by a shell or a missile.", which is WAAAY too strong to backed up by what actually happened. The vehicle was not "totally redesigned", it simply had the ammo storage altered, which was a minor change. Pmw2cc (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Foreign users?

As I remember reading Jane's vehicle guides a few years ago, Saudi Arabia did receive some 400 M2s. Should I add it? I forgot which edition. Ominae (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Saudi's did in fact receive the BFV. Transition support for the program was provided by the BFV NETT and the BFV Master Gunner School. Although I did not participate in this particular program I was an instructor for the MG course and also served with the NETT during this time frame. The Saudi's were also heavily involved in the purchase of the LAV which I was directly involved in supporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCFalco(ret) (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pentagon Wars"

Somewhere reference should be made to the movie "Pentagon Wars", as it was about the development of the Bradley. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/ drh (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is already referenced under Production History. Vstr (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reorg Suggestion

Currently the article is organized as follows:

     Overview
     Production history
     Combat history
     Variants
     Armament
     Operators
     References
     See also
     External links

Which is a bit different from how most AFVs tend to be organized. I'd like to suggest that it be changed to:

     Overview
     Development History
     Production history
     Combat history
     Variants
     Armament
     Operators
     References
     See also
     External links

Some of the stuff that's in the current "Production History" section is redundant or belongs in Development History not Production. Pmw2cc (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The BCOTM

What of the ill fated Bradley command track variant? Only 5 exist, but I took one of them to "combat" (my vehicle was passed down from OIF 1, where the DC of 4ID used it). My personal vehicle was one of the variants produced in 2004. The official name of the variant was M7. Although the service run of the vehicle was VERY limited (as I said numbskulls, 5!) 1(?) of them saw action in OIF 1. That, as it turns out, was MY vehicle. That vehicle was under command of the 4th ID commander himself. I hesitate to say what made this vehicle stand out, but it had 2 commo dishes (of different pattern) and a SERVER STACK. It also did not have a TOW, as the back wash of a missile would blow off the many antennae. The vehicle possessed 3 screens, in the 'dismount' area, displaying 3 different programs (thus the server stack jackass!)

Requested move

M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle → M2 Bradley — wouldn't call it the M2/M3/M6/M7 Bradley. Split off M3 Bradley Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unconvinced. The M2 and M3 are the main variants, so agree that M2/M3/M6/M7 is not appropriate. But, it seems excessive to split the article, as most of the material applies to both the infantry (M2) and cavalry (M3) versions. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unneeded. I don't think the differences between M2, M3, M6, etc are different enough to warrant splitting up this article. Based on what is in this article, a separate article on the M6 and other derivatives would be a fairly short. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to Bradley Fighting Vehicle, so you don't have to mess with "Mx" and so that it would cover the variations. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This would violate Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#Naming conventions, which is perhaps not a show-stopper but should not be taken lightly. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment In terms if reliable sources. 593 hits for 'M2/M3 Bradley'[1], 639 hits for 'M2 Bradley'[2] and 364 hits for 'M3 Bradley' (minus 'M2/M3')[3]. I personally perfer M2/M3 Bradley (593 hits[4]) vs. M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (187 hits[5]), but that's neither here nor there. I suspect there is enough material to write a stand alone M3 articles, if someone wants to go down that road. It's not an entirely uncommon approach (see: Leopard 2E variant of the Leopard 2, M60-2000 Main Battle Tank variant of the M60 Patton, AMX-30E variant of AMX-30, etc.) I just don't think it would be easy write given the M2 and M3 share the same chasis and largely same evolution. Either way, I'd like to see an M3 article before supporting this move.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll start today. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle → Bradley Fighting Vehicle — 70.29.210.242 is right, some sort of parent article should exist. M2, M3 and possibly others should have their own articles. I've started an M3 Bradley article on my userspace

• Support. As noted above, this violates the Weaponry Task Force article naming convention, but on reflection the common name of all these vehicles is simply Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and I agree this is the best solution overall. Unsure whether M2 and M3 variants really need articles, or even whether it matters either way, but I think this proposed move is a good step in any case. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)