BMP
ORIGINS
In many ways the arrival of the BMP in the 1960s was surprising, because the Soviet Army had been slow to mechanize its infantry forces. During World War II, the Red Army did not field significant numbers of AFVs. Instead, Soviet defense planners concentrated on manufacturing tanks and assault guns, leaving the infantry to rely on their feet and whatever wheeled vehicles they could muster. While Soviet forces were victorious on the Eastern Front, the lack of mechanized infantry was a major shortcoming of the Red Army’s fighting power.
The Soviets themselves seemed to recognize this deficiency and began mechanizing their infantry forces in the late 1940s. They briefly experimented with half-track configurations (including the American M3, which the Soviets received under Lend-Lease, and examples of the SdKfz 251 captured from German forces) but promptly abandoned them. “The half-track approach,” according to historian Steven J. Zaloga, “was not as popular as it combined the complexity and cost of tracked vehicles but lacked the superior mobility of fully-tracked vehicles. This was not a unique viewpoint – half-track suspensions were almost universally abandoned after 1945 in favor of wheeled or tracked configurations” (Zaloga 1994: 4). Thus, the Soviets’ first attempt to mechanize their infantry divisions came with the fielding of the rather unsatisfactory BTR-152, which had virtually no cross-country capabilities and performed only marginally well on improved roads.
Since mechanized infantry units were expected to keep pace with their armored counterparts, the Soviet Army began soliciting designs for a tracked infantry transport. Ideally, Soviet commanders wanted an infantry transport that could travel at speeds of up to 45km/h (28mph) offroad and 60km/h (37mph) on improved level surfaces. The vehicle also needed an operational range in excess of 300km (186 miles). These performance metrics would enable the infantry carrier to match the mobility of the T-62 and T-64 main battle tanks. The first of these designs was the BTR-50P, developed in 1951 by the Kotin Design Bureau in Leningrad. It was little more than an adaptation of the PT-76 light tank, but was nonetheless a significant step forward in developing a tracked IFV. To fulfill its role as an infantry vehicle, the BTR-50P removed the PT-76’s turret and gave the entire chassis an open-air top with seating for two infantry squads (20 dismounts in total). The BTR-50P was a mobile and resilient vehicle, but it was poorly configured for its role as an infantry transport. For instance, a soldier had to climb over the sides to enter and exit the vehicle – a cumbersome process that could be fatal in combat. Also, the seating for 20 dismounts was not conducive to proper personnel management. Since the Soviet rifle companies were triadic (three platoons of three squads each), commanders had to mix squads from different platoons in the same vehicle. As a result, Soviet designers soon realized that their infantry vehicles had to be tailored to squad size.
This BTR-50 in East German service is pictured in Berlin during May 1973. The BTR-50P entered Soviet service in 1954 and equipped the motorized rifle regiments of Soviet and East German armored divisions and mechanized brigades; Egypt, Syria and others used the vehicle in the Six-Day War (1967) and the Yom Kippur War (1973). (Photo by Probst/ullstein bild via Getty Images)
While recognizing the need for a squad-sized infantry vehicle, the Soviet Army also began revising its tactical doctrines. By the late 1950s, strategists within NATO and the Warsaw Pact saw the future of warfare dominated by tactical nuclear weapons. As a result, conventional ground forces could no longer operate in massed formations; they would have to operate in a dispersed fashion using highly mobile combined-arms teams to present a smaller target for the enemy. For Soviet defense planners, the doctrine shifted: could conventional infantry survive on a nuclear battlefront? All the evidence indicated the answer to be “No,” and thus the IFV concept was born. Since delivering dismounted troops to a nuclear battlefield would expose them to radiation, the solution was to have the infantry squad fight from inside an armored vehicle when operating in a contaminated environment, or dismount and fight conventionally when the threat of nuclear weapons wasn’t present.
Even so, the West Germans beat the Soviets to the punch. In 1958 a revolutionary AFV appeared in West German service – the Schützenpanzer 12-3, arguably the world’s first IFV. West German doctrine favored an AFV that allowed mechanized infantry to fight alongside the tanks, rather than simply ferrying them to the edge of the battlefield in the manner typified by contemporary American AFVs such as the M75 and M59. Armed with a 20mm autocannon housed in a small turret, the SPz 12-3 carried five troops – half a squad – as well as its three-man crew. Importantly, however, the West German vehicle’s five dismounts could use their personal weapons from their mount only after emerging from the roof hatches to fire, thereby exposing themselves to enemy fire and the use of chemical weapons.
When the Main Administration of the Armored Force (GBTU) issued its BMP requirement in the late 1950s, the Soviet Army specified that the platform should have a special armament based on a one-man turret. The main weapon, subsequently, was the new 73mm 2A28 Grom (Russian for “thunder”) semiautomatic gun that was fed by an autoloader. This developmental 73mm gun was a revolutionary design and very similar to the shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). The gun’s primary ammunition would be the 73mm PG-15 rocket projectile. The PG-15 was similar to the older SPG-9 rocket, but with a much greater range to accommodate the standoff distances associated with armored warfare. Other militaries (on both sides of the Iron Curtain) had experimented with rocket launchers and recoilless rifles mounted atop their armored vehicles, but most refused to mount such weapons in the turret because of the gas blowback following the projectile’s discharge. To correct that problem, early designs of the 2A28 gun featured a bore evacuator that served as a “release valve,” of sorts, whenever the Grom was fired.
Alongside the Grom, the Soviet Army specified a coaxial machine gun with a caliber of no less than 7.62mm. To that end, the Tula Design Bureau selected the 7.62×54mmR PKT machine gun, which had become a mainstay of Soviet armored vehicles including the T-62 main battle tank and the BRDM-2 amphibious armored scout car. To give the vehicle an antitank capability, designers simply added a rail-launcher for the 9M14 Malyutka antitank missile (NATO reporting name: AT-3A “Sagger A”), which entered service in 1963.
Although the Soviet Army specified the BMP’s armament package in advance, the chassis design had been left open for debate. For instance, the question remained as to whether the BMP would be a tracked vehicle, a wheeled vehicle, or a hybrid that retained qualities of both. Most agreed that a fully tracked vehicle would be the most versatile, but the Soviet Army’s leadership was hesitant given the level of maintenance and the complexity of the system itself. Indeed, many believed that the maintenance requirements for a tracked system would be beyond the capabilities of the rank-and-file conscript mechanics. The deadlock over the wheeled-versus-tracked platform led the GBTU to announce a design competition in which four prominent design bureaus would submit prototypes for field testing.
Pictured here is a BMP-1, the most-produced variant of the BMP, on static display at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, DC. (US Department of Defense)
TOWARD THE BMP-1
The competing bureaus included the automotive plants in Bryansk and Rubtsovsk, along with the Isakov Konstruktorskoye Buro (KB = Design Bureau) in Chelyabinsk and the Gavalov KB in Volgograd (which later produced the BMD-1 Airborne Assault Vehicle). The Bryansk Automotive Plant’s design was known as the Obyekt 1200 – an 8×8 wheeled configuration that looked remarkably similar to the BTR-60/70/80 series of vehicles. The Rubtsovsk plant entered the competition with a most unusual design. Their Obyekt 19, as it was called, was a mix of wheels and tracks and featured four road wheels similar in configuration to the BRDM-2. However, between the two wheels on either side of the vehicle, there lay a retractable track assembly that could be lowered to improve mobility across rough terrain not suitable for wheeled vehicles. Obyekt 19’s engine was rear-mounted and the crew (including dismounts) entered and exited the vehicle through hatches on the roof. The Gavalov KB submitted two designs that, at first glance, were remarkably similar: the Obyekt 911 and Obyekt 914. The 911 had a fully tracked chassis, yet underneath the vehicle’s hull were four retractable road wheels which, theoretically, could be lowered to increase the vehicle’s speed on appropriate terrain. The 914 shared most of the design features found on the 911, except for the retractable wheels. The Isakov design, Obyekt 765, was a conservative tracked platform with a front-mounted engine and rear-mounted troop compartment.
Field trials began in 1961 at the Soviet Army proving grounds in Rzhev and Kubinka. Obyekt 1200 performed well given that it was a solely wheeled platform. However, the 1200’s results reflected the same mobility limitations as those of the BTR-series vehicles. Obyekt 19 and Obyekt 911 – each with their hybrid track-wheel configurations – performed poorly and were quickly eliminated from the stakes. Obyekt 914, despite its impressive performance during the field trials, could not recover from the perceived design flaws of a rear-mounted engine and roof hatches being the only means of egress. Accordingly, Soviet military planners saw the rear-mounted engine as a space thief – space that could be better utilized for accommodating dismounted troops. In addition, the roof-mounted hatches did not facilitate a rapid egress from the vehicle. In the end, Obyekt 765 won the competition. In many ways, the rear troop compartment was the deciding factor, since the 914 and 765 had similar performance metrics. After Obyekt 765 was accepted as the official BMP, limited production began in 1966. Following further operational trials (and a few redesigns of the original 765 chassis), the BMP was fully accepted into Soviet service in 1969.
While customizing the vehicle with the Union Jack, these British troops investigate an Iraqi BMP-1. This specimen was one of the few left intact following the coalition’s victory in 1991. Like their American counterparts, the soldiers of the British Army had been trained to fear and respect Soviet-built weaponry. After seeing Iraqi armor in action against the Challenger tank, Warrior IFV, and Scorpion IFV, however, it was clear that the Soviet-built vehicles of Iraq’s armed forces were qualitatively inferior. (TM 3915-E4, The Tank Museum)
From the time Obyekt 765 debuted in 1966 until it was delivered as the official BMP in 1969, there were at least four prototype production runs, each one an improvement in design and functionality on the previous. For instance, Soviet Army evaluators noticed that the BMP had a serious weight imbalance caused by the location of the engine and transmission. Furthermore, when trying to negotiate water obstacles, the BMP’s hull tended to porpoise along the waterline. Thus, to add additional buoyancy, designers added a 10in hull extension. This feature became standard on the BMP-1, which itself emerged as the “definitive version” of the BMP in 1970. The BMP’s new swimming air intake featured a snorkel to prevent water from flooding the engine.
IMPROVING THE BMP
Throughout its service life, the BMP-1 has been modified into different variants and undergone several upgrades. Modifications to the original BMP-1 included Soviet-built variants for reconnaissance (BRM and BRM-1K), command and control (BMP-1K and BMP-1Ksh), artillery target acquisition (PRP-3 and PRP-4), ammunition resupply, armored recovery (BREM-2 and BREM-4), and combat-engineer support (IRM); Warsaw Pact and other countries developed yet more variants.
An important upgrade to the BMP series of vehicle came in 1974, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, in which the Arab-operated BMP-1s had not performed as well as expected. Postwar analyses revealed, for instance, that the oneman turret configuration reduced the crew’s situational awareness and placed an undue burden on the vehicle commander, who did not have the same field of vision as that of his elevated gunner. Furthermore, the BMP-1’s 9M14 Malyutka antitank missile could not be guided effectively from the confines of the one-man turret. Ergonomics aside, the BMP-1’s 73mm main gun was highly inaccurate beyond 500m (545yd) and the vehicle’s armored skin was vulnerable to .50-caliber ammunition. To make matters worse, the crew had to keep some of the vehicle hatches open to prevent the vehicle from overheating. This not only compromised the safety of the crew, but made the BMP-1 vulnerable to small-arms fire from higher ground. Nevertheless, Arab crews praised the vehicle for its speed, agility, and low profile.
Motivated by these after-action reports, Soviet designers unveiled the BMP-1P as a stopgap measure to address some of the more serious design flaws. For instance, smoke-grenade launchers were installed toward the rear of the turret and the manually guided 9M14 Malyutka missile system was replaced with the semiautomatically guided 9K11 Fagot system (NATO reporting name: AT-4 “Spigot”). The 9P135 launcher was fitted to the turret roof, but this positioning compelled the gunner to expose himself to enemy fire before launching the missile.
A Bulgarian BMP-1P during the St. George Parade in 2009. Weighing 14.8 tons, the BMP-1P retained the 73mm main gun and powerplant of the BMP-1, but replaced the 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3A “Sagger-A”) missile system with the 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5 “Spandrel”) missile system and featured an additional firing port. The BMP-1P replaced the BMP-1 in production from 1979. (KGG1951/CC-BY-3.0)
Shortly thereafter, the design team at the Kurganmashzavod factory unveiled their prototype for the BMP-2, code-named Obyekt 675. The design featured the BMP-1 hull but with a two-man turret, accommodating the gunner and commander. The 73mm Grom semiautomatic gun aboard the BMP-1 was replaced by the 30mm Shipunov 2A42 autocannon. Unlike the Grom, the Shipunov has two selectable rates of fire: a slow rate of up 300rds/min, and a fast rate of up to 550rds/min. Two ammunition trays near the turret floor carry 160 Armor-Piercing (AP) rounds and 340 High Explosive (HE) rounds. Two types of AP rounds are carried: the Armor-Piercing with Tracer (APT) has a muzzle velocity of 970m/sec (3,182ft/sec) and can penetrate up to 20mm of armor, while the Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot with Tracer (APDS-T) has a muzzle velocity of 1,120m/sec (3,675ft/sec) and can penetrate armor up to 25mm thick. Taken together, these firepower metrics give the BMP-2 enough stopping power to halt an M2 Bradley and many other IFVs of the NATO contingent. The APT round, however, will not penetrate the upgraded armor of the M2A3 Bradley, which was specifically designed to defeat the 2A42 autocannon. Unlike the 73mm Grom, the 2A42 has an advanced stabilization system that gives the gun better accuracy while the vehicle is moving; and it can be aimed and fired by either the gunner or the squad leader (who doubles as the vehicle commander). Meanwhile, to retain the BMP’s antitank capabilities, Soviet designers improved its guided-missile armaments. Now, the BMP gunner could operate a 9P135M launcher (accommodating up to three different types of antitank missiles) safely from the confines of his vehicle.
A destroyed Iraqi BMP-2K command vehicle, pictured in April 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The BMP-2’s 30mm 2A42 autocannon was selected for a number of reasons. First, the BMP-1’s 73mm semiautomatic gun had been rendered obsolete with the development of Chobham reactive armor, first implemented on the M1 Abrams tank. Although the 30mm autocannon couldn’t penetrate tank armor, it still had significant anti-helicopter capabilities. Second, the 2A42 had a longer maximum effective range – nearly 4,000m (4,375yd). This allowed the BMP-2 to engage enemy vehicles from standoff ranges and better support its tank counterparts. As with the BMP-1, the BMP-2’s gunner could engage targets during low visibility with the use of a night sight and an infrared searchlight. The vehicle commander, meanwhile, had a periscopic day sight and an active infrared night sight. Third, the 2A42 had a higher maximum elevation, which allowed the gunner to engage enemy dismounts on higher ground. Like the BMP-1, the BMP-2 found a wide export market to the usual Soviet clientele. Although 200 BMP-2s were purchased by Saddam Hussein in 1986, the BMP-1 remained the primary variant in Iraqi service in early 1991. Most of the BMP-2s in Iraqi service would be destroyed during Operation Desert Storm, but a few remained in service by the time Operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003. Since that time, the remaining Iraqi BMP-2s have been scrapped. (US Marine Corps)
Delivered to the Soviet Army in 1987, and unveiled to the public in 1990, the BMP-3 outclasses most second-generation main battle tanks (1960–80). It did not appear on the battlefields of Kuwait and Iraq in 1991, however. To date, the BMP-3 has only seen combat with Russian forces in Chechnya and with United Arab Emirates forces during the Yemeni Civil War; it has also been exported to Venezuela.
Crew: Two (driver, gunner)
Dismounts: Nine (including commander)
Combat weight: 15.3 tons
Length: 22ft 1in
Width: 9ft 8in
Height: 6ft 4in
Armament
Main gun: 73mm 2A28 Grom smoothbore semiautomatic gun
Main gun rate of fire: 7–8rds/min
Main gun elevation: +33° / -4°
Gunner’s sight: 1PN22M1 (6× / 6.7×)
Commander’s sight: TKN-3B (4.2× / 5×)
Coaxial machine gun: 7.62×54mmR PKT
Main gun ammunition: 40
Machine-gun ammunition: 2,000
Missile: 9M14M Malyutka-M
Missile stowage: One ready, four stowed
Motive power
Engine type: UTD-20 six-cylinder four-stroke diesel
Horsepower: 300hp
Power-to-weight ratio: 19.6hp/t
Fuel capacity: 122 US gallons
Performance
Ground pressure: 8.9psi
Max road speed: 65km/h (40mph)
Max cross-country speed: 45km/h (28mph)
Max water speed: 8.0km/h (5.0mph)
Max range (roads): 600km (375 miles)
Fuel consumption: 0.38 US gallons per mile
Gradient: 35° (25° side slopes)
Vertical obstacle: 2ft 4in
Trench crossing: 8ft 2in
Ground clearance: 1ft 3in
In the BMP-1, the eight dismounts of the infantry squad were seated back-to-back, facing outward in the rear of the vehicle. Each infantryman had his own firing port and periscope from which he could engage enemy targets without exposing himself to enemy fire or a nuclear-contaminated battlefield. The crew compartment (housing the driver, gunner, and squad leader) was protected by a PAZ nuclear over-pressurization and filtration system. The one-man turret, meanwhile, was situated in front of the crew compartment and slightly to the right. The driver sat in the front-left of the vehicle with the squad leader seated behind him and off to one side of the turret. The soldiers could enter or exit the vehicle through the rear roof hatches or the two rear doors.
Initially painted in Soviet dark green, the Iraqi BMP-1s were overpainted in various shades of sand color, which faded and discolored in the harsh environmental conditions. The Republican Guard had a variety of markings for their T-72s and BMP-1s. The BMP-1s of the 3rd Tawakalna ala-Allah Mechanized Division were identified by the yellow flashes painted on their sides and their rear hatches. Each flash was stenciled with the parent brigade’s designation in Arabic numerals.
ORIGINS
Decades before the Bradley debuted with American ground forces, the closest thing the US Army had to an IFV was the M113 APC. As its name implied, it was little more than a “battlefield taxi” – a vehicle whose sole purpose was to deliver troops to the front lines where they would fight dismounted. The M113, though reliable, did not offer much in the way of protection or stealth. It was 8ft 2.5in tall, weighed 13.6 tons, and had a six-cylinder diesel engine which was incredibly loud, and a chassis protected by aluminum armor with a maximum thickness of 38mm. The intention was to protect the occupants from small-arms fire while making the vehicle light enough to be air transportable and amphibious.
When the M113 first appeared in 1959, the US military (like most of its NATO allies) was shifting its focus away from conventional ground forces in favor of nuclear weapons. According to most military analysts, tactical nuclear weapons would play a more significant role on the modern battlefield than would conventional troops. Since fighting in contaminated environments seemed to be a foregone conclusion, US policymakers wrestled with the problem of how to protect their troops from radiation. To that end, the Army began looking for an APC that would allow infantrymen to fight from within the vehicle if the battlefield were tainted by nuclear fallout.
A BMP-3 during rehearsals for the 2008 Moscow May Day Parade. This revolutionary design features an improved chassis with a rear-mounted V-6 engine, but still allows room for up to nine dismounts to sit in the rear. The armament consists of a 100mm 2A20 rifled main gun alongside a 30mm 2A72 autocannon, along with the standard 7.62x54mmR PKT coaxial machine gun. The 2A20’s autoloader holds 22 rounds of ZOF17 and ZOF32 projectiles. The BMP-3 also has an antitank missile system that fires the 9M117 Bastion laser-guided missile (NATO reporting name: AT-10 “Stabber”); six are carried. Unlike the BMP-1 and BMP-2, however, the BMP-3’s missile launcher is integrated inside the turret, no longer mounted externally and thereby exposing the crewman to enemy fire. (Vladimir Ryabtsev)
Beginning in 1964, the Army accepted bids for such a vehicle. The program was called the “Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle – 1965,” or MICV-65, and the initial design incorporated elements of the M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer. However, the Army concluded that it was too heavy to serve as an IFV and too slow to keep pace with the forthcoming MBT-70 tank (which would later evolve into the M1 Abrams). The Army would undoubtedly have made more headway on the MICV-65 had it not been for the Vietnam War. Indeed, as the US military sent more of its forces to Southeast Asia, programs like MICV-65 were placed on the back burner.
An M113 Armored Cavalry Vehicle (ACAV) in Vietnam, 1966. The US Army’s experience in Vietnam underscored the need for an IFV instead of a “battlefield taxi.” The M113 was vulnerable to enemy mines and anti-armor tactics, and not well suited for armored combat. Crucially, it lacked any weapon that could penetrate tank armor at normal combat ranges. Its primary armament was a .50-caliber machine gun; and a dismounted infantryman riding in the back had to expose himself through the roof hatch to engage the enemy. One expedient solution to this problem was the M113 ACAV, which was nothing more than an M113 with armor slats placed around the roof hatches to protect dismounts from small-arms fire. (US Army)
By 1968, as the war in Vietnam dragged on, the Army reopened the MICV program amid reports of the M113’s lackluster performance and news of the Soviet BMP. Over the next five years, the Army evaluated several prototypes for the MICV. Nearly all were rejected as being too slow, too heavy, or inadequately armored. Congress then canceled the program amid the backlash against the war in Vietnam.
At around the same time, however, the Army launched a program for a new armored reconnaissance vehicle. Billed as the Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle (ARSV) program, it sought a platform to replace the M113 Armored Cavalry Vehicle (ACAV) and the M551 Sheridan light tank, which first saw combat in Vietnam in 1969. With a steel turret and aluminum hull, the M551 proved to be highly vulnerable to anti-armor rockets and mines. The prototype vehicle for the ARSV program (called the XM800-T) was an impressive design, but post-Vietnam budget cuts led to the program’s cancellation in November 1974. However, military analysts soon realized that the MICV and ARSV could be combined into a single platform. After all, partisan politics did not negate the Army’s need for a stronger IFV – during Vietnam, the Soviet armored vehicles had jumped a generation ahead of their Western counterparts. Indeed, while the Americans were still relying on the M48/M60 tanks and the M113 series, the Soviet Army had fielded the T-64 and T-72 main battle tanks and the latest versions of the BMP.
The M113 was widely exported and many adaptations and developments of the type have appeared since its combat debut in 1962. Here, Iraqi soldiers in celebratory mood ride atop an M577 command vehicle captured from Iranian forces during the Iran–Iraq War. (Photo by François Lochon/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images)
But before the Army committed to building its own IFV, it examined a number of foreign-built vehicles to see if they would be a better fit. The French AMX-10 was evaluated but quickly dropped from the stakes. The West German Marder, however, was very popular among US Army officers stationed in West Germany. Army evaluators were impressed, too, but they ultimately rejected the vehicle due its high cost, light armor, and lack of amphibious capabilities. Ideally, the American IFV would need to be able to protect the crew from 14.5mm cannon-fire and carry a main gun with a stabilized system that would allow it to fire on the move. Yet the most glaring concern would be how to reconcile firepower and protection against mobility and stealth. Larger armaments and heavier armor would slow the vehicle down and increase the lifetime maintenance costs – both of which were undesirable for an American IFV. By nature, the IFV would have to be sufficiently agile to accommodate the rapid deployment needs of the infantry, yet offer its crew adequate protection from the normal variety of sidearms and shoulder-fired weapons.
The experimental XM723 IFV is offloaded from the cargo bay of a McDonnell Douglas YC-15 during loading/unloading trials in 1977. (US Department of Defense)
TOWARD THE BRADLEY
The initial prototype, designated the XM723, was developed by the FMC Corporation in 1973. It weighed 21 tons, had spaced aluminum armor that could withstand 14.5mm gunfire, and could accommodate 11 crewmen (commander, gunner, and driver – plus eight infantry). Unlike the M113, the XM723 had firing ports for the on-board riflemen, who sat facing the outside walls, rather than the center of the vehicle. Its most innovative feature, however, was a one-man turret with a 20mm autocannon. As with the BMP-1, the vehicle commander sat inside the hull.
Developed in 1976, the scout reconnaissance variant of the XM723 replaced the one-man turret with a two-man turret which featured a 25mm Bushmaster autocannon and a TOW (Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided) missile launcher. The two-man turret, although taking up more space within the vehicle and thereby reducing the number of personnel who could be carried, gave the commander a better situational view of the battlefield. The TOW missiles gave the vehicle a strong anti-armor capability and would help it achieve parity with the Soviets’ 9M14 Malyutka and 9K11 Fagot missile systems.
By 1978, the two-man turret design had been selected as the better of the XM723 variants. Thus, the two-man turret design (with its TOW missiles and 25mm main gun) became the standard-bearer for the IFV and the armored reconnaissance vehicle. After the US Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, gave his approval for production in early 1980 the vehicles were subsequently classified as the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV). The M3 CFV was nearly identical to the M2 variant; but instead of holding six infantrymen, it was configured to hold two cavalry dismounts. The additional space made available by the reduction in the number of dismounts accommodated extra TOW missiles, 25mm ammunition, and 84mm M136 CT4 shoulder-fired missiles. The firing ports were sealed on the M3 CFV as they were deemed non-essential to the cavalry missions.
As per recent tradition, the Army chose to the name the vehicle after a famous soldier. Originally, there were plans to name the M2 after General Omar N. Bradley and the M3 after General Jacob L. Devers, but the Army chose instead to name both vehicles after Bradley as the M2 and M3 were essentially the same design.
An M2A0 Bradley fires its 25mm M242 Bushmaster autocannon during Exercise Shadow Hawk ’87. Prior to its deployment in the Gulf War, the Bradley had seen extensive service participating in arid-climate training scenarios. (US Department of Defense)
BRADLEY VARIANTS
Both the M2 and M3 received upgrades and led to successive variants over the years. In 1986, the Army unveiled the M2A1, in which space was made available for a seventh infantryman directly behind the turret. The M2A1 included an improved BGM-71D TOW-2 missile system, a Gas Particulate Filter System – for the vehicle commander, gunner, and driver only – and a Halon fire-suppression system. (The original M2 and M3 had no integral chemical defense system, compelling the crew to wear nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) protective gear.) The M3A1 featured similar changes, but with all five of its crewmen benefiting from the Gas Particulate Filter System.
An M3A2 Bradley demonstrates use of the BGM-71D TOW-2 missile at a gunnery range in West Germany. Although it provides the Bradley with a substantial antitank capability, the TOW missile can only be fired while the vehicle is stationary. Furthermore, the Bradley gunner has to guide the missile to its target via a complex and sensitive tracking system that requires a keen eye and a steady hand. (US Department of Defense)
In 1988, the M2A2 arrived, with an upgraded armor package that better protected the vehicle against 30mm AP rounds (such as those fired by the BMP-2’s 2A42 autocannon) and RPGs. Spaced laminate armor was installed on the hull rear and spaced laminate track skirts protected the track system and lower hull. More storage space was added to the turret and Kevlar spall liners were added to critical areas of the vehicle. The seating and stowage arrangements were also revised, with the dismount capacity becoming six once again. Although the first 662 production M2A2s had the original 500-horsepower engine, subsequent vehicles were fitted with an improved 600-horsepower engine in order to maintain performance. Gross weight increased to 33.6 tons as a result of these modifications. The M3A2 featured much the same upgrades as the M2A2, but moved the two cavalry dismounts to the left side of the vehicle to enhance their safety.
Crew: Three (commander, driver, gunner)
Dismounts: Six
Combat weight: 33.6 tons
Length: 21ft 6in
Width: 10ft 9in
Height: 9ft 9in
Armament
Main gun: 25×137mm M242 Bushmaster chain-driven autocannon
Main gun rate of fire: 200rds/min
Main gun elevation: plus 57° / minus 9°
Gunner’s sight: Raytheon ISU (4× / 12×)
Commander’s sight: Via optical relay
Coaxial machine gun: 7.62×51mm M240C
Main gun ammunition: 300 ready, 600 stowed
Machine-gun ammunition: 2,200
Missile: BGM-71D TOW-2
Missile stowage: Two ready, five stowed
Motive power
Engine type: Cummins VTA-903T eight-cylinder four-stroke diesel
Horsepower: 600hp
Power to weight ratio: 17.9hp/t
Fuel capacity: 175 US gallons
Performance
Ground pressure: 10.5psi
Max road speed: 56km/h (35mph)
Max cross-country speed: 48km/h (30mph)
Max water speed: 6.4km/h (4.0mph)
Max range (roads): 400km (250 miles)
Fuel consumption: 0.7 US gallons per mile
Gradient: 60° (40° side slope)
Vertical obstacle: 3ft
Trench crossing: 8ft 4in
Ground clearance: 1ft 3in
Like the BMP-1 and Marder, the Bradley had a front-mounted engine and a rear-mounted troop compartment. The driver was positioned on the left, just below the turret, and operated the vehicle with a hydrostatic steering system. Behind the driver was a “tunnel” leading to the rear crew compartment. Two of the dismounts sat back-to-back in this tunnel while the rest of the squad sat in the rear seating compartment proper. The two squad members in the tunnel operated the two left-side firing ports. The rear seating compartment was configured to seat two men to the right-side firing ports, and two men to the rear-door firing ports. The rear area also contained additional storage for 25mm ammunition (for the M242 Bushmaster autocannon) and extra TOW missiles. The turret of the Bradley sat off-center to the right, and held the vehicle commander and the gunner. The vehicle commander had 360° turret-mounted periscopes and either he or the gunner could employ the Bushmaster autocannon.
For their deployment to Southwest Asia, US ground forces repainted most of their combat vehicles from Forest Green or the common NATO-pattern camouflage to CARC (chemical agent resistant coating) Tan 686. When the 2d ACR’s tanks and Bradleys arrived in Saudi Arabia, they were hastily moved through “paint tents” in which each vehicle received its CARC Tan 686 scheme. The Bradleys in 2d Squadron, 2d ACR had no special insignia other than their vehicle number and unit identifiers stenciled on the rear. For example, this Bradley reads “E34” on the right (indicating that it is the 4th vehicle of 3d Platoon, Eagle Troop) and “VII 2CAV” on the left (indicating that the 2d ACR is part of VII Corps). The external stowage has been omitted from these illustrations to show details of the armor.
