The US has promised Ukraine a new military aid package including more Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
The US-made armored vehicles, which offer maneuverability, versatility, and sufficient firepower, have proven valuable to Ukraine efforts on the battlefield — more so than the main battle tanks and other heavy armor it’s received.
The US Department of Defense announced the aid package, estimated at $250 million, on Friday, noting that it “will provide Ukraine additional capabilities to meet its most urgent needs, including: air defense missiles; munitions for rocket systems and artillery; armored vehicles; and anti-tank weapons.”
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.
Armchair general opinion here, but basically: It pretty much doesn’t matter how much armour you pile onto something- it adds weight, fuel costs, and reduces speed, and all the armour in the world will still only last a limited amount of time against powerful explosives specifically designed to destroy armour. The most basic thing about armoured vehicles is doing something in the time that that armour buys you. And to do stuff, you need speed, firepower, and a good optics system.
The Bradley has those three things in spades. Even if it’s not the most heavily armoured vehicle ever seen, it’s really fucking cost effective, WAY easier to maintain with Ukraine’s more limited resources than the US army, and versatile as hell. It uses the time that it has before the armour inevitably fails exceedingly well.
What a lot of people against help to Ukraine don’t realize is that the whole country is basically the cheapest Q&A testing facility the US has ever gotten access to. By giving away and monitoring produced vehicles, they strengthen US production while rapidly iterating better equipment. All while frustrating Putin.
That’s a really interesting and probably accurate take!
I’m really curious to see all the unexpected innovations that come from this war. …not that I feel good about the human cost.
Here’s one that’s happening before our very eyes and very rapidly. Drone and drone warfare.
We’re seeing not just how the technology evolves but also how the strategies in their usage are changing.
That makes sense. It definitely all makes me uneasy. We really don’t need further depersonalization of killing.
Armor is good against light infantry, right up until they get anti-tank weapons, after which it’s a massive coffin/integrated crematorium.
We switched to Strikers and those other stupid things in Iraq for the same reasons, there were rpg-7s everywhere, you just couldn’t stop them, more armor slowed you down and made you a worse target in bad terrain.
The Bradley is death against everything its size, and killed a bunch of T-72s because TOWs don’t lie. Mainly, if you’re worried about RPGs, you can have guys get OUT of the Bradley and chase them with guns.
Bradleys are loads better in open field combat than they are in built up urban areas though. They weren’t designed with that threat model in mind, and it shows. They are going absolutely gangbusters in field combat in Ukraine, for the most part.
Nothing really works in urban combat, it’s basically rpg whackamole.
Your only options are sending dudes out on foot, and now drones, and even that has mixed results.
Theres also the Russian option: level the entire urban area to rubble with artillary.
And they learned that by losing tank after tank in Grozny.
That’s basically their response to everything, that’s their response to seeing a grassy meadow covered in baby deer.
When you have a hammer…
Another ACG here (arm chair general) maybe it’s logic today too because so many russian tanks have been blown up and are thus a much smaller threat?
Great news anyways!
take that Pentagon Wars, Bradley FTW
Everything wrong with Pentagon wars summary:
TLDR, the guys opposing the Bradley were a completely loony bunch who thought the strategies and technology of yesteryear is the way to go and they were so in love with the M113 that they thought it would make a good aircraft.
Longer option, hilarious too:
Thank god someone else remembered that movie
Business Insider - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Business Insider:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
