Warrior Vs Bradley

[mr reality 0]

Theres been three great Addons released of these IFVs and my missions are all the better for it  ,but i just wanted to know which one of these Vehicles is basically better  in "Real life".As i'm a Brit i would go for the Warrior but i think the Bradley probably just edges it the marders probably a little dated:( .

A big thankyou to "Rudedog","MMP" and "DKM" for excellent addons

[tankieboy 0]

I would rather be attacked in a Warrior and rather be attacking in a Bradley.

This topic is going to start flames.

[sputnik monroe 102]

I hope it doesn't start a flame war.

From what I have heard from veterans, the Warrior is better armored and Bradley has better firepower.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]This topic is going to start flames.

Probably, but the question is who will end the "Warrior vs. Bradley" debate and start the "Brits vs. Yanks" flamewar .

Quote[/b] ]I would rather be attacked in a Warrior and rather be attacking in a Bradley.

Ditto. Though if I was in an APC and was attacked by MBTs, I'd rather be in a Bradley so I could knock a few out with TOWs before I got fried   .

[Major Fubar 0]

I think this would be more at home in A&M:D...

...and please, keep it civil...no "USA rules, Britiain sucks" or "Britian rules, USA sucks" type comments will be tolerated.

[FerretFangs 0]

End it before it begins. No good can come of this topic.

[Wilco 944]

Who the hell cares, if you meet one in the battlefield, your dead anyways

[Ninja_STO 0]

@Mr Reality

I think it would be better to state which aspect you are looking for, such as better range, better weapons, better armor, etc.

Also, to keep this forum from turning into a so-called "flame war", it can also be decided to keep this forum based on proven data. If you are wanting to know which armor is stronger, people can limit their posts to including links of penetration tests or something. You get the point I'm sure.

If this forum is going to turn into something based on pure opinions, like a "just for fun" thread, please do keep it cool. No arguements, as this leads to many troubles. I also agree that forum topics based solely on "Which is Better" personal opinions only lead into huge arguements with people yelling 'Yo Momma jokes across the internet.

[Rishon 0]

Personally, I'd rather be in a Warrior, because It may lack fire power but, it makes up for that in Armor. Then again, If I was on the attack, a bunch a bradley's can kill MBT's where as a bunch of Warriors would get decimated. It's pretty much a tie as far as equipment goes. It only matters personally, as they are both cool, and useful.

[Wick_105 0]

on the battlefield he who moves,turns and fires first and fastest wins.

but you can also give the best piece of modern kit to poorly trained soldiers and they would loose to a better trained crew manning a sherman (though that would never happen, it would be funny to see)

does anyone have the specs for the two (aka length width weaght max speed do they have normal night vision sights or thermal sights how many troops can be caried under battlefield conditions stuff like that)

[Bobcatt666 0]

Well having worked on both and seeing the outcome of both being lost in fighting or to mines. But the M2 has had its surviablitiry systems updated since the first gulfwar signifcantly.

Pros:

Warrior lower profile, than the Bradley making easier to hide harder to engage. Bradley has an very high profile, often taller than most main battle tanks, Warrior is deployed in a better way than the Bradley which is treated like a tank dispite lacking the armor and maingun firepower, but has a standoff capability with the TOW missile launcher.

Both vehicles oddly have their beginnings out of the old M113. The Us went fot high tech gear on their weapons platform thus mechanicly rather sound, usually electronics and hydrolic systems requiring a great deal of maitiance. The Warrior was not as sofisticated, in the electronics area but, the drive train maintanace intensive.

The Warrior is safer to the crews on board durring attack mainly because it doesn't carry high explosive missiles that can be detonated by armor spalling when hit causing catastropic inner hull explossions. Mostly the problems with the Bradley is how it is deployed in combat, usually up front with main battle armor which is usually notwise with a thin skined armored vehicle.

Kinda a toss up, both have roughly the same cons, RPGs are not their friends, nether could fight tanks close up. Land mines really screw up ones day and both vehicles.

[mr reality 0]

I think it would be better to state which aspect you are looking for, such as better range, better weapons, better armor, etc.

@Ninja_STO...I suppose i just thought some of the knowledgeable guys out in the BIS forum could of shared their opinions and know how.I only think it starts into a "Flame War" when you get juveiniles entering into it.But for the more mature OFP fans out there(and i know theres far more of them then any opionionated moron) I dont think it would start people flaming.I'm a Brit but i personally think the Americans have far supperior weapons and armour its just there tactics that lets them down..

Quote[/b] ]i think this would be more at home in A&M:D

Well if your looking at the Addon perspective the Bradley pack by Rudedog wins by a mile..DKM released theres a bit too early so it has a few bugs.Maybe they had too many moaning emails so the just thought "what the hell".

[.granQ. 0]

to avoid a "brit vs usa" flame war i think it would be better to compare with a lot more..

Swedish "combatvehicle 90", the ceasar version has pretty much cover but don't belive it as high as americans or brits.. but instead it got a 40 mm cannon..

Russian: BMP 1. okey, this one is real old, but.. could it be better with a bigger cannon like the 73 mm.. or maybe even 90, 105 mm.

Or is the high rate fire better?

BMP3, well this baby has it all in fire power, but is it good, the turrnet can't aim so much down if i remeber right..

Germans has the "wisel" or something.. but don't know anything about it.

Okey, the topic was about warrior and brandley. So i am kinda off-topic, but can't we do a "if you could design tomorrows IFV, what is the key?"

[EiZei 0]

to avoid a "brit vs usa" flame war i think it would be better to compare with a lot more..

Swedish "combatvehicle 90", the ceasar version has pretty much cover but don't belive it as high as americans or brits.. but instead it got a 40 mm cannon..

Russian: BMP 1. okey, this one is real old, but.. could it be better with a bigger cannon like the 73 mm.. or maybe even 90, 105 mm.

Or is the high rate fire better?

BMP3, well this baby has it all in fire power, but is it good, the turrnet can't aim so much down if i remeber right..

Germans has the "wisel" or something.. but don't know anything about it.

Okey, the topic was about warrior and brandley. So i am kinda off-topic, but can't we do a "if you could design tomorrows IFV, what is the key?"

Also consider the price, BMP-3 is quite cheaper than ie. CV90.

Too bad the CV90 does not have ATGMs, would have saved my life in more than couple of FDF multiplayer matches.

On-topic:

Didnt the first bradley models have some major difficulties with its fuel tanks placements (easy to blow up with a single RPG) and cargo space? Also the warrior has 30mm main gun instead of bradley's 25mm one.

[Grizzlie 0]

It is hard to answer this question. M2 is way different of M2A2 ODS for instance; first Warriors had unstabilised gun, which is "fixed" now. So with same name we have almost completely different IFV's.

About BMP-1, it's main gun is rather grenadelauncher (it uses same ammo as heavy grenadelauncher), 8 shots per minute is not impressive (as far as i know finnish BMP's has removed autoloaders), so most project of modernisation goes to replace this gun with 25-30 mm auto canon. Putting something bigger is rather impossible - BMP is too light to take big recoil (almost twice lighter than other IFV equipped with 105-120 mm guns).

BMP-3 in my opinion has too complicated armament - logistic is prolly nightmare... But still good russian "school" of building.

CV90 seems to be very good (microwave cooker and WC including ), but non-swedish users preferred 30 mm gun (CV9030).

Germans still uses Marders, which r well protected, but seems 20 mm cannon today is little weak. Planned Marder 2 would be real moster, but they dropped it. Now they r developing Puma if i remember well.

Of course we can't forget about wheeled IFV's like Patria, Pandur, ect. mostly armed with 25-30 mm cannons.

Future IFV?

Prolly somekind of modular armour (2-4 levels of protection), new materials, new ammo, more "vectronics" IFF including, better anti-mine protection.

Today we have 2 trends - "strategical" and "tactical" manouvreability.

Strategical - ability of air transport - rather wheeled with additional armour remomovable during transport, weight rather less than 20 tons.

Tactical - rather tracked, better armour, weight rather more that 25 tons (in some up to 40 or little more).

And of course "Heavy IFV" like BTR-T or Azharit, but now it is too early to say how they can evalute - like BTR-T armed with auto cannons, ATGM's, ect. in one turret, or like Azharit - MG's or grenadelaunchers in more-than-one turrets.

[mr reality 0]

Quote[/b] ]Germans has the "wisel" or something.. but don't know anything about it.

Don't they still use the Marder ?.

I think the marder is an excellent IFV built before the Bradley and the Warrior if i'm not mistaken..Typical German engineering,bloody good...

[the_shadow 0]

to avoid a "brit vs usa" flame war i think it would be better to compare with a lot more..

Swedish "combatvehicle 90", the ceasar version has pretty much cover but don't belive it as high as americans or brits.. but instead it got a 40 mm cannon..

Russian: BMP 1. okey, this one is real old, but.. could it be better with a bigger cannon like the 73 mm.. or maybe even 90, 105 mm.

Or is the high rate fire better?

BMP3, well this baby has it all in fire power, but is it good, the turrnet can't aim so much down if i remeber right..

Germans has the "wisel" or something.. but don't know anything about it.

Okey, the topic was about warrior and brandley. So i am kinda  off-topic, but can't we do a "if you could design tomorrows IFV, what is the key?"

Also consider the price, BMP-3 is quite cheaper than ie. CV90.

Too bad the CV90 does not have ATGMs, would have saved my life in more than couple of FDF multiplayer matches.

On-topic:

Didnt the first bradley models have some major difficulties with its fuel tanks placements (easy to blow up with a single RPG) and cargo space? Also the warrior has 30mm main gun instead of bradley's 25mm one.

well, there has been built a prototype of CV90 with BILL 2 ATGM launchers on the turret side (like Bradley but opposit side) ;)

the problem was that the cargo space was decreased to 4 includingmissile gunner (yes, they had a separate gunner for the missiles)

but hey, include 1 of those in each platoon at it could have been good

[HOBOMAN 0]

I must agree the warrior is stronger, but the bradley has more options for weapon systems

[walker 0]

Hi all

The real question that describes the survivability of mechanised infantry platoon in battle is that of platoon formation not the equipment.

I = infantry section

V = IFV

When in contact by deploying in a V formation survivability of the whole platoon is maximised.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

I            I

  I       I

   VVVV

There are several reasons for this.

*The leading elements are the most covert (an infantrysoldier is less visable and audable than an IFV)

*The leading element have the best situational awareness (even turned out the crew of an IFV are subject to loss of soundscape due to engine noise. Visual constriction due to equipment obscuring view)

* The most powerful weapons are able to engage in a directed fire mode where direct line of site is obscured or masked by terrain, atmospheric effect, or smoke. While the observer element can hold fire thus not revealing its position.

* It is easy to maintain unit cohesion as the fastest element the vehicles

* The infantry element provide a screen against tank hunter killer sections (in the forward movement arc)

* The superior sitiational awareness of the infantry provide warning to engage heavy armour elements from distance. a good argument for the bradleys TOW. as well as the infantry providing close anti tank suport in defence

* The engagement ability of the IFVs is limited by having the infantry in the way of the fire to the forward flanks

The wedge formation provides shock and punch but has inevitable and inherent weakness for survivability of the whole platoon.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

   VVVV

  I       I

I           I

* Unit cohesion is always at a risk with the inevitable tendancy of the IFVs to go off on a charge.

* The platoon is not capable of covert action

* Long range and powerful fire is to the front

* Situational awareness is near nill as the IFVs must inevitable fight turned in and the Infanty must contend with obsuration of vision by vehicles, their dust and smoke if under attack. Sound awareness to the front is also masked by IFV engine and weapons noise.

There are other formations but these descibe the tactics outlined by others in this thread.

Kind Regards Walker

[MSpencer 0]

Originally the original bradley in development had many problems. They wanted to cut costs and get it ready. There was a movie about it... I don't remember the name.

If I were infantry running around on the battlefield, I'd prefer the Warrior. The Bradley has room for 6 cramped soldiers. The Warrior has 8 if I recall correctly.

Of course if we were assaulting somewhere, Bradley. The Warrior just lacks the firepower that the Bradley has. The Bradley was designed as everything the M113A3 wasn't. Fast, reliable, slight amphibious, and heavily armed. They didn't make it as a tank. It's still an APC with little armor so it can move quickly with it's cargo of 6+ TOWs, 25mm Bushmaster ammo, and a coax M240, plus 6 troops!

Of course, I don't think I'd like to be in a BMP-1, BMP-2, or BMP-3 for anything. I'm sorry, but I've really grown to distrust Russian APC engineering after Chechnya. As far as the main gun of the BMP-1, it's a big, slow firing, lumbering RPG7 launcher. Personally, 73mm and 8 shots a minute is really low firepower. Plus the armor on a BMP-1 is nonexistant. You can punch through it with less than 12.7mm, you could most likely pierce it with 7.62mm.

The Warrior, of course, is pretty strong, but that's all relative. Can any APC really take a SABOT from a T80? Or a HEAT round? (Don't even bring up HEPF...)

I'm not so sure about the CV90. I don't know much about it's armor, but the firepower it has is impressive.

[.granQ. 0]

since knowledge about cv90 isn't that big, i will just take brief.

sweden has 9040 (old bofors 40 mm, gun are used, infact same as the anti air gun during WWII)

Export version is 9030, a 30 mm version.

9040 A version was "crappy".. unstabilised gun and this was made for 1990's.. not 80...

9040 B version fixed gun and small parts

9040 C version with like 5 ton extra armor, this they finded good enough for sending on missions.

Guess the same goes for most ifv..

What i also was thinking was not the 73 mm cannon on the bmp1, since it is old, slow and weak. But if we took modern ones, The amos has two 120 mm guns on wheeled light vehicles, so with todays technology i guess you could make a pretty fast and low recoil 105 mm gun.

Reason for this: 25 is too weak today for other ifv.. soon even 40 mm will be. 105 will last longer.

105 is a big "show of force" thing.

But maybe the rate of fire is more needed.

this is really off-topic and i don't mind if people delete it, but think warrior vs brandley covers too little and seems other people agree.

Anyone can tell me more about german armor and the bmp3. I know finland tested BMP 3 VS cv9030 in some article, couldn't understand what it said, but looked intreseting ;)

The discussion "future" ifv maybe we should take in another thread?

[Grizzlie 0]

Those "light" wheeled vehs with 105 mm cannons weights about 20 tons or more... comparing to 12 tons of BMP-1.

And 25 mm Bushmaster can use APFSDS ammo, so it means it is not so weak. And i have heard roumors about using Bushmaster II - can somebody say more about it?

[Pathy 0]

I would go for the Warrior. Chobham armour rules. Reports of Warriors taking 7 different RPG hits in Iraq and still running with barely a scratch......

[the_shadow 0]

well, CV9040C weights 28 tons, CV9040B weights 25 tons...

so it´s a bit heavier then a BMP ;)

i dont think either Bradley or Warrior weights over 20 tons (might be wrong though)

well, if i had to choose i would probably choose the Warrior (preferably the version with TOW) it has more armour, bigger main gun (30mm) and it got TOW ATGM for long range against tanks...

if i could choose any IFV in the world (well, among those i know of) i would probably choose the CV9056 (40mm main gun, BILL 2 top attack ATGM, and most armour (atleast heaviest) of the ones i know of) but the downside is as i said earlier, it can ONLY take 4 passangers.. the bradley take 6, BMP 1 take 8, CV90 take 6 (warrior take 6?)

***EDIT***

CV90

added a link to Hägglunds, the manufacturer of the CV90 family (and the BV 206 among others)

[Pathy 0]

TOW version of the Warrior is export and therefore does not have the Chobham armour.