vehicle

The United States has created the latest version of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle based on the experience of combat operations in Ukraine. Posting in CHAT: Russia The American military-industrial complex once again confirmed that the best examples of military equipment can only appear as a result of constant refinement of existing models based on the results of their combat use. And if until recently the search for the ideal lasted for decades since the Korean, Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan wars, then under the conditions of the Ukrainian campaign “perfection” is achieved in a much shorter period of time. Born in Fire A few days ago, the US Army released photos of the newest and most advanced version of its Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), based on the results of the combat use of previous models of this vehicle during the Ukrainian conflict. . In a statement, the US Army's Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems (PEOGCS) released images of the latest generation M2A4E1 Bradley variant. According to the results of the presentation held last week in Maine, the new product received the title of “the most modern and survivable” version of this armored vehicle. According to the developers, the new Bradley IFV is the result of the integration of the Iron Fist active protection system, an improved high-definition forward infrared shooter and an environmental control unit to “prevent thermal stress upon landing.” M2A4E1 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. © US Army Will all survivors survive? The Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle is one of the most controversial combat vehicles in service with the US Army for almost half a century. Work on creating an infantry fighting vehicle for the American army began in 1964 as part of the MICV-70 (Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle) program and ended in 1981 with the adoption of the M2 Bradley. During this time, several models of infantry fighting vehicles were developed, which were both variants of a deep modernization of the American M113 armored personnel carrier of the 1960s, and fundamentally new vehicles. The inconsistency of the Bradley lies in the fact that this infantry fighting vehicle cannot be classified as either an absolutely successful or an a priori unsuccessful combat vehicle. Over the years of combat use in its history there have been both the most amazing ascents and no less enchanting failures. In its heyday, during Operation Desert Storm, the M2 actually destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the main American tank, the M1 Abrams. Moreover, during the operation, only three vehicles were lost from enemy fire. A Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle during Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq, 2003). © US Army However, already during Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq, 2003), Bradley suffered serious losses. The reason for this was the different nature of the use of infantry fighting vehicles, and if during Desert Storm it was used primarily in reconnaissance or free hunting mode, then in the second campaign it was tasked with supporting infantry. Here, what remained of the “hero of the first Iraqi war” was something that could not have appeared in the first campaign. Due to insufficient protection of the lower part, Bradleys regularly became victims of mines and ground explosions, including homemade ones. “Many vehicles were damaged by improvised explosive devices, which easily penetrated the thin and vulnerable armor under the Bradley chassis,” said US Army Capt. Josh Kilian, an armor expert. However, at the same time, another property of this machine appeared, which significantly influenced its future fate - incredible survivability. The Bradley is known for its extraordinary ability to keep its crew alive and healthy, even if the BMP is hit by an enemy shell (or ATGM) or blown up by a mine. The experience of the second Iraqi campaign led to significant modifications to the vehicle, which largely eliminated its main drawback - the weakly armored bottom. At that time, no one thought about the imminent appearance of combat drones striking from above... Lessons from Ukraine According to the Pentagon, the United States sent about two hundred Bradleys to Ukraine, and not the latest version of the M2A2. Partially this led to a repetition of the “Iraqi experience”, since the vehicles were badly damaged by mines and land mines, but in general, the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ reviews of them were much better than those of other Western vehicles. , including Leopards 2, Defenders and Abrams. The reason for this is the same high survivability provided by reliable side and frontal armor, as well as the presence of a rear ramp for landing and leaving the vehicle. In addition to survivability, the BMP is distinguished by good armament, including a TOW ATGM, a combat module with a 25-mm M242 Bushmaster automatic cannon and a 7.62-mm M240S machine gun. A fairly powerful 600-horsepower engine allows the Bradley to accelerate to 64 km/h (on the highway) with a relatively small range of 400 km. This is not to say that the Bradleys achieved incredible success during the Ukrainian campaign, but the role of “workhorses of war” rightfully belongs to them. The defeat of a column of Western military equipment in Ukraine. © Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, still from video. Literally immediately after the arrival of the infantry fighting vehicle in Ukraine, the world media distributed a video about the defeat of a column of Ukrainian equipment, consisting of the same Bradley and Leopard 2 tanks. The debut actually turned out to be unsuccessful, but apparently. Judging by the same video, the main reason for the destruction of the column was not technical deficiencies, but gross mistakes by the Ukrainian crews. “If the Ukrainians had kept more distance between vehicles, had more knowledge and understanding of how to use defile (a tactical concept used to describe a military formation's exposure to enemy fire) and medium visibility stripes, many of these vehicles would have remained untouched,” Josh Kilian commented on this episode. Operated in Ukraine The main result of the modernization is the use of the APS Iron Fist protection system, which makes the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle even more reliable and survivable. The system was developed by the Israeli company Elbit Systems and provides reliable protection against anti-tank shells and missiles by launching interceptor ammunition to destroy them from a distance. According to a fact sheet published by Elbit, Iron Fist "increases the survivability" of armored vehicles and is effective against "all types of anti-tank threats." Previously, such systems were used mainly on tanks due to their complexity and high cost. Today they are moving to the next, lower level of military equipment. According to Major General Glenn Dean, who heads PEOGCS, the US military only signed an agreement to purchase Iron Fist at the end of March, having previously believed that it could not afford such complex and expensive systems. “The Army has received funding to purchase an M2A4E1 for every Bradley donated to Ukraine,” PEOGCS said in a statement this week. So, as often happens, brutal fighting in one country provokes the development of industry and technology in another. The newest Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, introduced in the United States, is unlikely to end up on the Ukrainian theater of operations in the foreseeable (and not foreseeable) future. Equipment modernized on the basis of the latest combat experience acquired no matter in which country will for a long time be used only by the army of the country of its origin. Source link Source link