@@andreww1225 In a western MBT, the turret will not fly, OK but the result will be the same: The crew members will be dead, incinerate inside the turret. I prefer die in a blink of an eye in a T72 than burned alive in a Leopard... ;-)
What happened is a Kinetic round (Sabot) went through the Bradley like swiss cheese. A Sabot rounds is designed for use against tanks not IFVs. This is not a credit to the Bradley but simply firing the inappropriate round for the target.
Nah a Sabot round would leave a tiny entry hole. This looks like a dud HEAT or HE round. It's not unlikely that Russians are still using some batches from the 1960's.
@@JAnx01 If it were an explosive round it would have taken out the Bradley and not just smashed it's way through. Hell they may have just fired a training round at the inadequate piece of crap. As we say in the US Army, "Scouts out (M2 Bradley) targets up".
There is absolutely No way that damage is from a a projectile lol. ZERO I was a Tanker for 6 years and have quite extensive experience with battle field damage BTW. It looks like to me the driver made a bad Oopsy and ran into something he should not have. Sheering off the up armor panels and causing this damage.
It ain't about "how well engenieered" the armor of the Bradley is, but rather sheer luck. The ammo used by the T-72 must've been an APFSDS (armor-percing fin-stabilisied discarding sabot), which penetrated the IFV like swiss cheese, but failed to touch either the engine, or the driver, since this type of ammo is specifically made to engage other tanks. In the end, the driver might've gotten lucky, but if there were any crew in the Bradley, they most likely turned into strainers with all the metal splinters the hole created.
@@vegan-cannibal714 Sabot and HEAT would have burn marks or a small hole where the Sabot entered. To be honest almost looks like a Rocket or tank round hit but was a dud. big hole but no explosive.
I spent my time in the army as an M3 bradley crew member during Operation Desert Storm I was a gunner credited with two t-72 kills. that damage is nor from a tank hit, or any other battle damage I can think of. the only way a t-72 did that to the bradley is if someone dropped the t-72 on it.
@bananian if it had punched, there would have been hundreds if not thousands of little red hot globs of aluminum flying everywhere. crew members would have died and at least one of the cables and control modules under the turret would have been damaged.
These tanks was easy to destroy bt moktada alsader army.. In baghdad.. I saw it in street.. The us troops was cocked like kabab in these tanks.. Bradly.. I can imagen the ukranie troops are been kabab
HE dud maybe? You would think the shrapnel created from the hit would be enough to knock the crew out, at least the turret crew, even if the HE portion was a dud.
@@viper29ca here's my problem with the whole thing. That damage is nowhere near round. When a round hits something it makes a hole that's almost a perfect circle. Even HEIT damage is close to a circle. It doesn't matter if its 17hmr or 125mm aka 5in for any navy guys. Lastly you bring up a great point where are the bodies. When a round breaches armor it sends a spray of white hot liquid metal through the vehicle. The turret crew is surrounded by a thin layer of aluminum maybe an 1/8in. It's there to keep stuff out of the turret basket (just made that term up. I don't remember what the real name is for the turret shield) and prevent damage from something falling into the turret as it spins. The first ones to die would be the mushrooms. The guys riding in back. The infantry version has a seat right below the damage for a mushroom. That guy would be dead for sure. .
The round hit where the dismounts would be. But just behind the turret basket. The crew in the turret were incredibly lucky. Just 1 foot more left and it wouldn't be a David vs Goliath story lol.
Not accurate information. One of the offensives saw a couple dozen destroyed and they were promptly replaced by US government which has over 3 thousands of an already retired model of the IFV ready to be sent to Ukraine
@@disillusioned8686 Even Oryx, an NATO outlet, admits 50 Bradleys are lost. And they haven't reached the 1st line of defense after such massive losses, and each line behind the 1st line is stronger than the previous one. And Oryx always decreases the actual Ukrainian losses: if they admit 50 Bradleys are lost, then the actual number is probably 80 or so. I mean they also admit the loss 61 M777, while in reality 121 are confirmed to be destroyed or damaged with video proofs.
oh come on with a couple! just stop with all the bull your making your self come across as either retarded or dishonest. your starting to sound like the presenter of this channel.@@disillusioned8686
that isnt true. and so what if some bradleys are lost. its called warfare. how many bmp were lost in the same time period? the bmp is junk in commparisson. so stop acting like bradleys or any type of armored vehicle should not get knocked out in war. its called war brain demon and everything gets knocked out at some point. what is with this argument like the bradley failed because a tank knocked it out. i got news for u know it alls. a tank should not out a bradley if it hits it. the bradley is not a tank. u internet experts are something else. u dont know shit.
You obviously no shit about the Bradley or what it can do. Bradley square wasn’t so much on the vehicle. Switch out with some American crews see what the outcome is.
It wasn't necessarily defective, but it did make a huge hole, so definitely not APFSDS and HE would've killed everyone inside. All I can think of is an FPS drone strike or HEATFS, which is the right round for that target so it make sense, hitting beind the turret like that would send shrapnel flying in the passenger compartment, but could leave the crew relatively safe.
And I have seen another video with about 5 Bradleys knocked out and 2 Leopard 2A6 tanks. The war in Ukraine is rapidly showing Russia, NATO and the USA how MBTs are becoming the battleships of WW2. Big and expensive targets. And the Russian Lancet costs them about $35k each and that's a great trade for an $8M Abrams or the $3M for a Bradley. In Sept, we get to see how well the M1 Abrams sent to Ukraine do against Russian drones.
@@dragoon3359 optics don't matter if you can't get to the enemy. And for both soviet and western tanks you need to bring less ammo for the battlefield if you want to provide safety for the crew, otherwise Leopard turret will pop off as well like in Syria or Ukraine
I guess you don't know that even from day one tanks have needed support. In WWI infantry could fire through the armor of the first tanks and could capture them with grenades. In WWII there were man portable rockets and guns that could breach tank armor. Of course artillery and airplanes could kill tanks too. Tanks have always worked best in a combined arms unit. The exceptions have been in cases like a lightening strike.
@@recoil53 I don't get how combined arms unit will deal against loitering munitions. Can you elaborate? Because Lancet with codename "Izdelie 53" (launching tubes leading to much faster deployment with mounting to light vehicles, swarm mode, better AI) hasn't entered the battlefield yet. And Lancet with codename "Izdelie 54" (most likely internal combustion engine leading to increased range and higher speeds) was announced. And production and use of Lancets and FPV-drones is massively increased in Russia.
From distance 4km, look when russian tank was hit by Swedish tank killer and russian tank still could take out western tanks,jet su 25 was hit by us sam and could still go back
4km is a long way buddy, 4 km is longer than the range of most tank guns or personal anti tank weapons. So if the weapon was able to hit the tank that far from distance, I give a heads up to that weapon even though it didn't destroy it. You see when you put Western weapons vs Russian weapons, there's no comparison!
no Russian junkyard jet was ever hit by a us anti-aircraft missile and was able to fly back to base. our weapons are in a different League than Russian weapons buddy. Russia has been lying about its capabilities for the last 50 years, we've been making things to counter those false capabilities. so we actually have what we say we have. everyone's talking about Russia's hypersonic missiles, the US retired its first hypersonic missile in the 60s. when the rest of the world was still trying to figure out how to make jet fuel, we were fucking around with hypersonic. and your t72 or your t14 Armada that doesn't exist LMAO🤣 wouldn't stand a chance against a Bradley 1v1. all of our troops are equipped with night vision, every. single. one. why aren't Russians? oh, that's right, because they can't afford it. and the ones they do have were stolen or sold. get real, Russia has never been a threat to anybody other than themselves. but, by all means, continue to believe vladdy poo's propaganda 😅
bull shit. everything u just stated is a lie. russian tanks and ifv are garbage in comparison to the bradley and the abrams. abrams can engage russian armor before russians are even range to fire a shot. the optics are far superior in the bradley and abrams than anything in russian equipment. the night vision is garbage in comparrison and during desert storm i was a bradley gunner and i kicked the shit out of bmp, brdm btr. none of them stood a chance against the bradley. the bradley and abrams armor is far superior. both are faster and have better off road capability and both are not cramped ergonomic nightmares. the autoloader in th russian tanks are prone to jaming and ripping the arms of the crew and they sit right on top of the ammo. which is why they all die when the ammo is hit. the guys in the back of the bmp have to climb over the engine to get out and the vrew sits on top of the fuel. which is brilliant lol. 4km it outside the range of pretty much every tank main gun on the planet. everything u state is factually incorrect. i am not sure where u get your info from but u need to change your source and go back and read some tech manuals
@@donflamingo795 most can't fire that far and most optics cant see that far. 4km is around 3 miles. tank main guns or atgms dont have that range. and if they did u can't see anything that far because the optics don't allow it. at least not when i was getting out of the army in 08
I don't exactly know how Ukrainians use IFV's, but they usually drop their infantry pretty early to avoid this exact thing from happening. IFV's are supposed to fight along side the infantry, not keep them all bundled up in a albeit well armored hull, but as we see here it's not going to stop a tank shell.
No way it can survive T72 Remember the video on early invasion, when T72 get hit on close range by NLAW? Yep that doesn't mean T72 can survive NLAW if it can hit properly
You've got so many things here wrong that I don't even know where to start... Bradley is lightly armored, most of its armor consisted of aluminium. Sides are armored even less. So, what happened here is something commonly known as "overpenetration". In other words: armor is very weak and it was hit with something with high penetration value (APFSDS or HEAT) which caused the projectile just to whizz through. Those projectiles were designed to penetrate smth with significant armor and cause damage inside it with spalling (turning pieces of vehicle's own armor into shrapnels). But when the armor is thin and penetration is high, it will go through without causing much damage on the inside. Like shooting a cardboard box from high power rifle from 5 paces away. The round will go through creating perfect circle and exit the other side without much damage. Sure, anything in the path of the projectile will be taken out, but nothing else. That gives a lot of chance for the vehicle to stay operational. If it was hit with 125mm HE round, the Bradley would be turned into bunch of scrap metal of undefined shape. But high energy round will just go through without doing much damage on the inside... It was most likely hit with something of high penetration because that is what the crew had loaded...
Looks like a HE round. AN AP round would have punched a small hole (1-2 inch) into the Bradley and would have created an exit hole on the opposite side,because it would go straight through an IFV.
An HE-F round with fuse that failed to detonate the 5 inch parcel's 5 kg explosive surprise. The effect on amour is like very blunt nose full-caliber ap shell
Looks like an old HEDP round that didn't go off, most likely due to its shelf life, it's very common that Russians are using ammunition from the 70s. Note there is no frag pattern or spalling on the Armour.
The Bradley just got a lucky hit on the empty spot, if’s were a tank it’s couldn’t have survived , the shape charged explosion just went through the entire body of the Bradley, it’s like shooting to an empty box 📦.
how do u know it fired a HEAT round? u are speculating. it may have been hit with a sabot or a APFSDS round. what u are doing is speculating and trying to pass it off as fact. a red herring its called. in truth u have no clue what type of round it was hit with. most likely it was hit with a type of AP round. those don't expload and most likely just cut thru the bradley without hitting anything. dont take what u read on war thunder as gospel bro. read the actual tech manuals on the bradley and tank rounds. shape charges are only in heat rounds and some rockets. they have limited use. for example heat rounds dont work that great against a MBT
The anmo that rhe rank used simply went through it because there were very little resistance from the thin armor and the fuse didnt get enought impact to be triggered. You can say that this Bradley got lucky.
@octopus_news yeah it survived the hit precisely because the HE round didn't get triggered and went through the thin armor like bullet through paper. If the HE actually exploded, you would see soot mark on the part that got hit. But you don't see any soot mark here. The HE didn't got triggered.
@@donflamingo795 how do u know it fired an HE and not an APFSDS or a hesh round or a sabot? both of u are speculating and makes your point moot. my guess is an ap round hit it and just went through it. ap rounds don't expload or have triggers. but i cant say for sure what type of round was used and the both of u can't either.
First off, kudos to the military channel for finding video of so many Bradley's that were actually moving on their own power. Second, You will never convince anyone with any real world experience in Bradley's or Tanks that this one was shot by a T72 without any casualties. Think about it... if it was hit with a APFSDS, the projectile would have gone in small, come out small and sucked everything out the exit hole that wasn't bolted down, including the crew. If it was hit with a HEAT round, it would have rapidly disassembled the ass end of the vehicle, popping the turret and everyone inside would have died. The Bradley, otherwise known as an M1chock block, is not made out of some extraterrestrial material that can survive a hit from a MBT.
Well, in the Munster „Panzermuseum“, there is a „Jagdpanther“ in the exhibition. This beast of an armoured vehicle was killed by a puny 57mm Anti-Tank gun. No, not by penetrating some thin side armour or such, but the thickest part of the armour, right where the gun comes out of the hill (mantlet ?). In war, „luck“ is sometimes the most decisive factor, if for AT-Gunners or A Ukrainian Bradley-Crew. Happy for those guys…
The only Tiger tank still in working condition was captured after it was knocked out with 3 shots by 6 pounder gun of Churchill. None of shots actually penetrated armor, one round got stuck between turret and hull, jamming rotation mechanism, another one bounced off turret, into hull roof, causing plate to crack and splinter inside of tank. Crew thought they've been penetrated, twice, and bailed.
The Bradleys are so good that they were honored to be placed in Bradley Square, to demonstrate the superiority of Western equipment to the Russians-BBC
@@jackuzi8252 yeah, I’m not comfortable with that assessment. The United States of America only gave a finite number of Bradleys to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, with a contingency. And that would be that not only one crew per Bradley, but alternative crews be trained off of Ukrainian soil for months on end. These crewmembers have had extensive training. I will grant you this, some of them probably have not had a lot of combat experience, but they were put through the ringer on these Bradleys
You put a good crew in there I promise you it would be a different story. I personally spent over 20 years on a Bradley and was a master gunner on one and know first hand the capabilities of can and cannot with a Bradley.
I’m guessing that the T-72 round was either a dud HE round or a kinetic penetrator. Apparently the Bradley wasn’t carrying troops in the back or there would have been casualties.
The engine in the bradley is located near the front thus the IFV was not disabled, and the hit was wide from the turret train but this shot went straight through the troop compartment, hopefully no one was in there at the time...
@@abdel57quaddi80that is not a hand made hole , it's not a tough vehicle but I'd happily give you an axe to give doing that a shot. Clearly a round of some type hit it as the surrounding area is peened in, it was possibly a dud or defective or just a high energy shell. Neither US or Russian IFV's are designed for tank confrontation
2:57 you're leaving out the part where the Bradley got struck in the infantry compartment which is a non-vital area of the Bradley had it of been struck in a different area closer to the front the Bradley probably would have been knocked out of commission
How is this channel "desperate" when they frequently post videos from both perspectives? Their last few videos have involved criticizing Western equipment.
What I hate most is generalities without any specifics. "The tank has good shells and Bradley has a good armor. Do you know what is the secret to the durability of this armor? The secret is that an armor is good!"
The Bradley is basically an aluminum box. That T72 round went straight through and came out the other side. It was as lucky shot that nobody was hit or any systems damaged.
basically u are wrong and im tired of explaining to all u internet experts why u are wrong. some of us actually used the bradley in combat. but i am over debating people that make up facts and think they know things when they really don't its like debating a fiction writer that gets to make up what the truth is. just stop with the misinformation. i have spent 2 hours disputing stupid comments on here
Maybe the T72 shell using APFSDS without explosive shell. We can see the plate is broke until inside, but no explosive. Pure armor pearcing like steal arrow, is capable for hit some MBT to targeting crew like driver or gunner. If T-72 using shell like DM13 shell to bradley with spot like that, i think the entire crew will be burning inside
I am glad many comments share my sentiment. Didnt watch it until the end, but it is a known problem when powerful ammo pierces a vehicle through without causing any real damage neither to the crew or equipment. It simply means wrong type of ammo had been used against it. I take any modern armour light or heavy doesnt have a splinter problem (soft armour layer etc). We dont know what happened to people inside. Bradley is bulky and has a lot of internal volume and height, and it was a crew compartment which is basically empty space. I dont see how surviving an armour piercing round adds karma points. The same round that hit bradley would have missed BMP entirely.
Lucky, in normady i view a documentary, a sherman has hit by a 88 and survive because its a very, very close range but like this bradley survive because the energy of projectile its very high they simple penetrate the front and the rear blindage without exploding.
This entire video is a hodgepodge of generalities and vague statements that never really got detailed. The armor failed completely and location of hit is all luck. Smh
Thers a nasty video showing troops inside a knocked out Bradley trying to get out. The ramp is jammed and they eventually get out via the door in the ramp. One soldier has both lower legs missing.
Это один из лучших БМП в мире,а возможно и самый лучший. Не одну жизнь моих сослуживцев спас.Огромное спасибо США и американскому народу за такую помощь нам.Благодаря такой помощи мы можем защитить свободу наших детей🇺🇦✌️🇺🇦✌️🇺🇦 6:47
@@alexeilebedev7462 Ти мокша зовсім української мови не розумієш.А то що ти українським перекладачем користуєшся це дуже гарно,вам потрібно знати мову та культуру тих людей,котрі вас хрестили і з яких ви пійшли.
Я мокша? 😅😅😅 А ты теперь евроцыган... Кочуете по европе пока не пнут... 😂😂😂 И с какого перепугу ты взял, что я переводчиком пользовался? И вообще к твоему сведению, так сказать для общего развития... Знай, что вашу мойву вам придумали поляки по заказу австро-венгров, на базе польского и южно-русского наречия... Суржика... Потому вы один и тот же предмет в разных областях называете по разному ибо нужно ещё несколько сот лет, чтоб язык устаканился... А про крещение лучше не кукарекай после того, что вы творите в церквях... Сразу видно кто вы... Ну, ниче... Время всё расставит по своим местам...
@@alexeilebedev7462 Ты настоящий мокшанин,сразу видно по манере общения.А то что ты гугл переводчиком пользовался,так это видно по подбору слов.Люди которые знают прекрасную, соловьиную мову совершенно другие слова подставляли в тех предложениях которые ты нагуглил.Не занимайся больше ерундой,вы палитесь на раз два.Меня твои ревностные мокшанские высеры по поводу моей,как я уже тебе сказал,прекрасной-соловьиной мовы вообще не цепляют,а попросту мне на это накакать.Тебе так мокша понятно?Сказки свои что Украину придумал австрийский ген.штаб,а мовы нашей никогда не было,это обычный высер обиженного ватного имперца,которому покоя не даёт то что Украина при желании может забрать у вас всё,начиная от Истории заканчивая вашим влиянием в мире.А мы вам говорили когда-то, делайте что хотите только нас больше не трогайте,и дураку ясно что Украина вам не по зубам,но вы идиоты как обычно сделали всё наоборот.Ну теперь от вашего дутого вяличия и следа не осталось.У вас один шанс остался.Взять ядерные боеголовки и как камикадзе подорвать самих себя,русские же не сдаются 🤣🤣🤣
German 88mm anti tank rounds went thru one side and out the other side of US Sherman tanks during WW2. One or two crewmen were usually killed but if nothing critical in the tank was hit they would wash out the blood and guts, repaint the interior, put 88mm metal patches on the holes and give the tank to a new crew. If the tank got hit again by a German 88mm iit probably caught fire. Sherman’s were known to catch fire when hit because they used gasoline not diesel. Germans nicknamed them Robson lighters the cigarette lighter “that lights every time.” Bradley’s are know ti catch fire and melt because their armor is aluminum not steel.
A tank round leaves lot of mess than that and will make a hole in both sides in a Bradley .this is looks like Bradley hit something like other vehicle by accident.theres no way to survive a direct hit without being completely destroyed or disabled. Don't buy into propaganda like this to cover up failure of Bradley's weak armor againt anti armor weapons
Guys, that's not a tank round impact. The hole is not uniform and is way too big. Regardless for what you might think of the Bradley, it is never the less an armored fighting vehicle, requiring some kind of armor piercing projectile in either kinetic or chemical (HEAT) modalities. For either of those options the hole would be uniformly round relatively small. A HEAT round uses a shaped charge to create an explosively formed penetrator of molten slag that bores into the armor. A kinetic round just... bores through the armor brute force as a subcaliber munition. Either way, that's not what a kinetic or chemical hit looks like. Also, notice the lack of burn marks. There is A LOT of energy released in a tank gun hit, and it leaves burn marks. There are no burn marks here. This damage almost looks like a collision. Was it rammed by a T-72? That might make a hole like that, not sure. That metal is broken off neatly, there's very little deformation of the metal.
Let it be said if an actual t-72 shot a bradly with heat round then the bradly would simply cease to exist. Those rounds can go through like 4 walls of concrete and have a ton of explosive power
A-lot of people don't seem to understand this. The Bradley was developed to redesign the absorbent # of 113's in inventory since 1961. They have been redesigned, repurposed over and over since then, till finally, the upgrades led to the development of a design as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the 80's. Weapons and munitions, like most things evolve and get repurposed and redesigned, because it's cheaper than flat out redevelopment and people in general are pretty unilaterally boring, unimaginable, and use money as an excuse to do less; so we get stuck in design and development, that isn't brand new; but, reimagined. This is a 113 with newly developed modifications... that's all.
not even close to correct. the only similarity is they can carry men in the back. the bradley is nothing like the 113 the armor is totally different and can handle ap rounds up to 40mm in the frontal arc. the 113 can barely stop a 50 caliber. i really wish people would stop thinking they know everything about everything. but u saying its just a upgraded 113 is ignorant at best and as funny as saying the bmp is better. do yourself a favor and read some tech manuals and other litature on the bradley. because i am not going to debate it with u because factually u are totally wrong. and when a know it all argues using anything but facts and can make up things as goes along like a fiction writer debating your type is useless. i will leave it at this. u are wrong on every single non factual point u tried to make
Everyone saying that's not damage form a tank round, Zero chance of it! but- If the troop bay is empty it's entirely possible an improper tank shell such as a Kinetic penetrator can go through both sides of the troop bay inflicting minimal damage to the vehicle and without casualties being inflicted. it's a big ol empty space featuring little if any important parts for the vehicle. Putting it like this- if You had just an empty cavity in Your body that held no vital organs and little if any blood veins and someone Shot a rifle round through it, You'd keep on trucking along.
So the statement was, "That after the strike the crew man continued to operate the vehicle." That appears to be a solid shot strike which hit the transport section where the grunts sit. Either they were very lucky and no one was in there, or the vehicle got a new paint job. I hope it was the former. But the term "the crew man" suggests there were issues with the crew after the strike because the vehicle has three operators.
That looks like a APFSDS which is not for medium to light armor which mostly explains how it survive the the T-72, if the T-72 fire a HEAT round to the Bradley the Bradley will cook like cooking a stake in a barrel
It dependson the angle of the shot. If the T-72 round hit there from the forward left of the Bradley, there's just empty infantry compartment behind it. That's assuming no infantry were inside it. But a SABOT or the heat jet from a HEAT round would just clow thru there and the Bradley could fight on or withdraw still mostly combat capable.
The Bradley's hull is aluminum. The T72 round probably passed right through it. If the T72 had been using HEAT rounds instead of sabot, the Bradley would have become a fireball.
that hole looks like it was done from an old solid iron cannon ball, not a modern anti-tank round. But i guess it made a great backdrop for a video about bradleys
Did this guy really just say that the Bradley AND the T-72 are known for their protection? There is a video of a T-72B3 turret shooting 100 meters or roughly 300 feet into the air. I promise that NONE of the crew survived the violent explosion that would be required to not only launch 12+ tons of steel into the air, but it would also need to have the force to remove all piece connecting it to the tank hull. The 3 man crew is incinerated by the ammunition being ignited. Even if by some small miracle the driver survived this, the resulting fire blast would tear through every part of the tank and kill/burn anything else that could be destroyed by the flames. These are not even close to the same levels of protection considering one is meant to take tank shells and survive, while the other is only meant to take small arms fire and survive. Then the guy goes into how the Bradley is "one of the most heavily armored and securely protected vehicles globally". No sir... not even in the top 50 of armored vehicles in the world even if you exclude all the variants of the same tanks out there. now, that may ring true in terms of APCs, but you failed to specify that part, so maybe clean that up a bit.
The amount of experts in here is staggering. That isn't a tank round hit or any other kind of hit. It's not. There are no burns and no shrapnel damage. That is a simple impact. The vehicle ran into something or something ran into it. It probably happened in the motor pool.
LIES! as a combat veteran no soldier was in that area when it was hit. they would not survive. I'm a former tanker and I have sat in a Bradley just to see what it was like.
its so obivious that if this impact dont killed the mobility it injuried the troop and the turret gunner and maybe also the driver with minimal damge at the engine and the drive
I like how this entire video is about how great the Bradleys armour is despite there being a giant hole in it...
point is to convince Ukrainians that Bradley can 1v1 against Russian armor :) just like they were saying Russia dont have any ammo left :)
that hole did not came from tank attack or misile .. the hole is hand made .
Doe’s better than Russian tanks that would have sent t72 turret into space and killed the crew 😆
@@andreww1225 In a western MBT, the turret will not fly, OK but the result will be the same: The crew members will be dead, incinerate inside the turret.
I prefer die in a blink of an eye in a T72 than burned alive in a Leopard... ;-)
@AptivaXP they have blowout panels
What happened is a Kinetic round (Sabot) went through the Bradley like swiss cheese. A Sabot rounds is designed for use against tanks not IFVs. This is not a credit to the Bradley but simply firing the inappropriate round for the target.
Nah a Sabot round would leave a tiny entry hole. This looks like a dud HEAT or HE round. It's not unlikely that Russians are still using some batches from the 1960's.
@@JAnx01 If it were an explosive round it would have taken out the Bradley and not just smashed it's way through. Hell they may have just fired a training round at the inadequate piece of crap. As we say in the US Army, "Scouts out (M2 Bradley) targets up".
@@mikevars8979 I mean a dud round, meaning it didn't explode, but definitely not a Sabot round.
@@mikevars8979perhaps HE-F with faulty fuse that didn't detonate the explosion chamber
@@worldoftancraft maybe
There is absolutely No way that damage is from a a projectile lol. ZERO I was a Tanker for 6 years and have quite extensive experience with battle field damage BTW. It looks like to me the driver made a bad Oopsy and ran into something he should not have. Sheering off the up armor panels and causing this damage.
I agree, that does not look like it was hit by a round.
maybe T-72 used rubber round :)
that hole did not came from tank attack or misile .. the holl is hand made
It makes great propaganda for the US but that is tempered by other videos showing a bunch of Bradleys taken out alongside a Leopard 2A6.
or a dud HEAT / HE round
It ain't about "how well engenieered" the armor of the Bradley is, but rather sheer luck. The ammo used by the T-72 must've been an APFSDS (armor-percing fin-stabilisied discarding sabot), which penetrated the IFV like swiss cheese, but failed to touch either the engine, or the driver, since this type of ammo is specifically made to engage other tanks. In the end, the driver might've gotten lucky, but if there were any crew in the Bradley, they most likely turned into strainers with all the metal splinters the hole created.
that's not a sabot hit. it's not damage from a tank round.
@@vegan-cannibal714 Sabot and HEAT would have burn marks or a small hole where the Sabot entered. To be honest almost looks like a Rocket or tank round hit but was a dud. big hole but no explosive.
Lucky , very lucky ! 🤣🤣🤣
@@Thaliathegodslayer there literally is scorching around the rupture. most likely was an HE/Frag round
@@rmz9054 There is wwii images of test of pz.V armor with an HE round. The same exactly effect from the outside.
I spent my time in the army as an M3 bradley crew member during Operation Desert Storm I was a gunner credited with two t-72 kills. that damage is nor from a tank hit, or any other battle damage I can think of. the only way a t-72 did that to the bradley is if someone dropped the t-72 on it.
Now that you mentioned it, it is odd. The shell would either penetrate or bounce off. It wouldn't blow a hole but not go through.
@bananian if it had punched, there would have been hundreds if not thousands of little red hot globs of aluminum flying everywhere. crew members would have died and at least one of the cables and control modules under the turret would have been damaged.
These tanks was easy to destroy bt moktada alsader army.. In baghdad.. I saw it in street.. The us troops was cocked like kabab in these tanks.. Bradly.. I can imagen the ukranie troops are been kabab
HE dud maybe? You would think the shrapnel created from the hit would be enough to knock the crew out, at least the turret crew, even if the HE portion was a dud.
@@viper29ca here's my problem with the whole thing. That damage is nowhere near round. When a round hits something it makes a hole that's almost a perfect circle. Even HEIT damage is close to a circle. It doesn't matter if its 17hmr or 125mm aka 5in for any navy guys. Lastly you bring up a great point where are the bodies. When a round breaches armor it sends a spray of white hot liquid metal through the vehicle. The turret crew is surrounded by a thin layer of aluminum maybe an 1/8in. It's there to keep stuff out of the turret basket (just made that term up. I don't remember what the real name is for the turret shield) and prevent damage from something falling into the turret as it spins. The first ones to die would be the mushrooms. The guys riding in back. The infantry version has a seat right below the damage for a mushroom. That guy would be dead for sure. .
The Bradley - the new and rising star on Ukraines scrap yards…!
Мы их подарим в КНДР 🇰🇵 мистер Ким будет рад😅😅😅
mybe a 2nd yard first one is filled with russian junk
*two ifvs survive tank rounds*
“Wow this sucks”
The round hit where the dismounts would be. But just behind the turret basket. The crew in the turret were incredibly lucky. Just 1 foot more left and it wouldn't be a David vs Goliath story lol.
No way is that from a tank round. Whatever it was though, they were lucky.
It was a sabot round, not he...
@lostinthedesert-hp4bw gotcha - why was I thinking shaped charge? 🤔 🤦♂️... a sabot round makes more sense... ffs...
It can when the round hits it at an angle, which seems to be what happened here.
Half of delivered Bradleys haven't survived so called counter offensive in Zaporizhie.
Not accurate information. One of the offensives saw a couple dozen destroyed and they were promptly replaced by US government which has over 3 thousands of an already retired model of the IFV ready to be sent to Ukraine
@@disillusioned8686 Even Oryx, an NATO outlet, admits 50 Bradleys are lost. And they haven't reached the 1st line of defense after such massive losses, and each line behind the 1st line is stronger than the previous one.
And Oryx always decreases the actual Ukrainian losses: if they admit 50 Bradleys are lost, then the actual number is probably 80 or so. I mean they also admit the loss 61 M777, while in reality 121 are confirmed to be destroyed or damaged with video proofs.
oh come on with a couple! just stop with all the bull your making your self come across as either retarded or dishonest. your starting to sound like the presenter of this channel.@@disillusioned8686
@@takoto2610 50 out of 4,600 M2 variants… the version already retired from US military service 🤷♂️
that isnt true. and so what if some bradleys are lost. its called warfare. how many bmp were lost in the same time period? the bmp is junk in commparisson. so stop acting like bradleys or any type of armored vehicle should not get knocked out in war. its called war brain demon and everything gets knocked out at some point. what is with this argument like the bradley failed because a tank knocked it out. i got news for u know it alls. a tank should not out a bradley if it hits it. the bradley is not a tank. u internet experts are something else. u dont know shit.
BRAVO UKRAINE ... GOD BLESS YOU.
its american
It just pure luck, and stop bragging about Bradley, Afterall, there are heaps of them at the Bradley square!
that hole did not came from tank attack or misile .. the holl is hand made
Ultimately you dont want an infantry fighting vehicle in a battle with main battle tanks. Its a lopsided battle.
You obviously no shit about the Bradley or what it can do. Bradley square wasn’t so much on the vehicle. Switch out with some American crews see what the outcome is.
In this particular case I would think in a defective shell
It wasn't necessarily defective, but it did make a huge hole, so definitely not APFSDS and HE would've killed everyone inside. All I can think of is an FPS drone strike or HEATFS, which is the right round for that target so it make sense, hitting beind the turret like that would send shrapnel flying in the passenger compartment, but could leave the crew relatively safe.
And I have seen another video with about 5 Bradleys knocked out and 2 Leopard 2A6 tanks. The war in Ukraine is rapidly showing Russia, NATO and the USA how MBTs are becoming the battleships of WW2. Big and expensive targets. And the Russian Lancet costs them about $35k each and that's a great trade for an $8M Abrams or the $3M for a Bradley. In Sept, we get to see how well the M1 Abrams sent to Ukraine do against Russian drones.
well? everything can be knocked out,only thing the western stuff brings is better crew safety and better optics
@@dragoon3359 optics don't matter if you can't get to the enemy. And for both soviet and western tanks you need to bring less ammo for the battlefield if you want to provide safety for the crew, otherwise Leopard turret will pop off as well like in Syria or Ukraine
I guess you don't know that even from day one tanks have needed support.
In WWI infantry could fire through the armor of the first tanks and could capture them with grenades.
In WWII there were man portable rockets and guns that could breach tank armor. Of course artillery and airplanes could kill tanks too.
Tanks have always worked best in a combined arms unit. The exceptions have been in cases like a lightening strike.
@@recoil53 I don't get how combined arms unit will deal against loitering munitions. Can you elaborate?
Because Lancet with codename "Izdelie 53" (launching tubes leading to much faster deployment with mounting to light vehicles, swarm mode, better AI) hasn't entered the battlefield yet. And Lancet with codename "Izdelie 54" (most likely internal combustion engine leading to increased range and higher speeds) was announced.
And production and use of Lancets and FPV-drones is massively increased in Russia.
Not everything is invincable and NATO tanks were desined for the Urban combat and not the open fields of Europe
This is an IFV and the hit was spot on the soldiers compartment .
From distance 4km, look when russian tank was hit by Swedish tank killer and russian tank still could take out western tanks,jet su 25 was hit by us sam and could still go back
4km is a long way buddy, 4 km is longer than the range of most tank guns or personal anti tank weapons. So if the weapon was able to hit the tank that far from distance, I give a heads up to that weapon even though it didn't destroy it. You see when you put Western weapons vs Russian weapons, there's no comparison!
@@virginccyy7645man, that atgm must be suck then. It can't even reach 4 km.
no Russian junkyard jet was ever hit by a us anti-aircraft missile and was able to fly back to base. our weapons are in a different League than Russian weapons buddy. Russia has been lying about its capabilities for the last 50 years, we've been making things to counter those false capabilities. so we actually have what we say we have. everyone's talking about Russia's hypersonic missiles, the US retired its first hypersonic missile in the 60s. when the rest of the world was still trying to figure out how to make jet fuel, we were fucking around with hypersonic. and your t72 or your t14 Armada that doesn't exist LMAO🤣 wouldn't stand a chance against a Bradley 1v1. all of our troops are equipped with night vision, every. single. one. why aren't Russians? oh, that's right, because they can't afford it. and the ones they do have were stolen or sold. get real, Russia has never been a threat to anybody other than themselves. but, by all means, continue to believe vladdy poo's propaganda 😅
bull shit. everything u just stated is a lie. russian tanks and ifv are garbage in comparison to the bradley and the abrams. abrams can engage russian armor before russians are even range to fire a shot. the optics are far superior in the bradley and abrams than anything in russian equipment. the night vision is garbage in comparrison and during desert storm i was a bradley gunner and i kicked the shit out of bmp, brdm btr. none of them stood a chance against the bradley. the bradley and abrams armor is far superior. both are faster and have better off road capability and both are not cramped ergonomic nightmares. the autoloader in th russian tanks are prone to jaming and ripping the arms of the crew and they sit right on top of the ammo. which is why they all die when the ammo is hit. the guys in the back of the bmp have to climb over the engine to get out and the vrew sits on top of the fuel. which is brilliant lol. 4km it outside the range of pretty much every tank main gun on the planet. everything u state is factually incorrect. i am not sure where u get your info from but u need to change your source and go back and read some tech manuals
@@donflamingo795 most can't fire that far and most optics cant see that far. 4km is around 3 miles. tank main guns or atgms dont have that range. and if they did u can't see anything that far because the optics don't allow it. at least not when i was getting out of the army in 08
The Bradley might have survived, but what happened to the troops inside?
I don't exactly know how Ukrainians use IFV's, but they usually drop their infantry pretty early to avoid this exact thing from happening. IFV's are supposed to fight along side the infantry, not keep them all bundled up in a albeit well armored hull, but as we see here it's not going to stop a tank shell.
Dead for sure
same thing happened at gulf war, a bmp 1 holed by sabot was still operational and returned fire to a bradley
Yeap
No way it can survive T72
Remember the video on early invasion, when T72 get hit on close range by NLAW? Yep that doesn't mean T72 can survive NLAW if it can hit properly
No way was this a hit from the canon of the T72. At the most this was a 30 mm gun or similar.
You need to study up on weapon systems. A 30 mm round would not penetrate and certainly wouldn’t have done that kinda damage.
You've got so many things here wrong that I don't even know where to start...
Bradley is lightly armored, most of its armor consisted of aluminium. Sides are armored even less. So, what happened here is something commonly known as "overpenetration".
In other words: armor is very weak and it was hit with something with high penetration value (APFSDS or HEAT) which caused the projectile just to whizz through. Those projectiles were designed to penetrate smth with significant armor and cause damage inside it with spalling (turning pieces of vehicle's own armor into shrapnels). But when the armor is thin and penetration is high, it will go through without causing much damage on the inside. Like shooting a cardboard box from high power rifle from 5 paces away. The round will go through creating perfect circle and exit the other side without much damage. Sure, anything in the path of the projectile will be taken out, but nothing else. That gives a lot of chance for the vehicle to stay operational.
If it was hit with 125mm HE round, the Bradley would be turned into bunch of scrap metal of undefined shape. But high energy round will just go through without doing much damage on the inside... It was most likely hit with something of high penetration because that is what the crew had loaded...
Was the Bradley hit by a HE round or AP rounds? What was the engaging distance? This wasn't presented.
turst ghost of kiev he was there he watched everything
Looks like a HE round. AN AP round would have punched a small hole (1-2 inch) into the Bradley and would have created an exit hole on the opposite side,because it would go straight through an IFV.
An HE-F round with fuse that failed to detonate the 5 inch parcel's 5 kg explosive surprise.
The effect on amour is like very blunt nose full-caliber ap shell
"Bradley's suvival is due to specific engineered armor"
The hole:
The Bradley weighs as much as the T72 even though its an infantry fighting vehicle and the T72 is a medium tank.
Doesn't matter as Putin is the most incompetent dictator on Earth
And it's made of Aluminium and steel plates with rubber backing, like the CV9040s recently wrecked in Ukraine.
mbt
T-72 is a main battle tank. The concept of medium tanks went out over half a century ago!
All main battle tanks are medium tanks.
Looks like an old HEDP round that didn't go off, most likely due to its shelf life, it's very common that Russians are using ammunition from the 70s.
Note there is no frag pattern or spalling on the Armour.
I guess the term “ Easley Square” is evidence that Bradley’s aren’t as good you say they are 😅
The Bradley just got a lucky hit on the empty spot, if’s were a tank it’s couldn’t have survived , the shape charged explosion just went through the entire body of the Bradley, it’s like shooting to an empty box 📦.
It’s entered from the side and exited from the back , hopefully no one was there …
how do u know it fired a HEAT round? u are speculating. it may have been hit with a sabot or a APFSDS round. what u are doing is speculating and trying to pass it off as fact. a red herring its called. in truth u have no clue what type of round it was hit with. most likely it was hit with a type of AP round. those don't expload and most likely just cut thru the bradley without hitting anything. dont take what u read on war thunder as gospel bro. read the actual tech manuals on the bradley and tank rounds. shape charges are only in heat rounds and some rockets. they have limited use. for example heat rounds dont work that great against a MBT
One advantage the T-72 has is that they can make their occupants instant astronauts.
The anmo that rhe rank used simply went through it because there were very little resistance from the thin armor and the fuse didnt get enought impact to be triggered. You can say that this Bradley got lucky.
@octopus_news yeah it survived the hit precisely because the HE round didn't get triggered and went through the thin armor like bullet through paper. If the HE actually exploded, you would see soot mark on the part that got hit. But you don't see any soot mark here. The HE didn't got triggered.
@@donflamingo795 how do u know it fired an HE and not an APFSDS or a hesh round or a sabot? both of u are speculating and makes your point moot. my guess is an ap round hit it and just went through it. ap rounds don't expload or have triggers. but i cant say for sure what type of round was used and the both of u can't either.
The armor had nothing to do with it since the shot went right through the Bradley. Lucky that the shot hit nothing critical.
First off, kudos to the military channel for finding video of so many Bradley's that were actually moving on their own power. Second, You will never convince anyone with any real world experience in Bradley's or Tanks that this one was shot by a T72 without any casualties. Think about it... if it was hit with a APFSDS, the projectile would have gone in small, come out small and sucked everything out the exit hole that wasn't bolted down, including the crew. If it was hit with a HEAT round, it would have rapidly disassembled the ass end of the vehicle, popping the turret and everyone inside would have died. The Bradley, otherwise known as an M1chock block, is not made out of some extraterrestrial material that can survive a hit from a MBT.
Just wondering, How would APFSDS suck people out of the other side?
@@the_darkgameryt He got his ballistics knowledge from movies...
Lets put some blue hair trans on F35's to fix this!!
America what happened to you?
Where have you seen this? 😂
A moment of silence for the Bradleys resting in Bradley's Square near Rabotino. 🤣🤣🤣
We watched more than one bradley burn, maybe this one was insanely lucky.
and I thought soviet era tank T72 was the David.
At 02:41 -- the Bradley survived. Did the blast penetrate the troop compartment? Would they survive?
Well, in the Munster „Panzermuseum“, there is a „Jagdpanther“ in the exhibition. This beast of an armoured vehicle was killed by a puny 57mm Anti-Tank gun. No, not by penetrating some thin side armour or such, but the thickest part of the armour, right where the gun comes out of the hill (mantlet ?). In war, „luck“ is sometimes the most decisive factor, if for AT-Gunners or A Ukrainian Bradley-Crew.
Happy for those guys…
The late war metallurgy was a big weakness in the german industry. It can explain why the Jagdpather armor did not sustain such a hit.
The only Tiger tank still in working condition was captured after it was knocked out with 3 shots by 6 pounder gun of Churchill. None of shots actually penetrated armor, one round got stuck between turret and hull, jamming rotation mechanism, another one bounced off turret, into hull roof, causing plate to crack and splinter inside of tank. Crew thought they've been penetrated, twice, and bailed.
The Bradleys are so good that they were honored to be placed in Bradley Square, to demonstrate the superiority of Western equipment to the Russians-BBC
What we need to talk about here is why did that Bradley with all of its technology not see the enemy and fire first?
Possibly because it was manned by draftees with some weeks of training and minimal English. Not really their fault.
@@jackuzi8252 yeah, I’m not comfortable with that assessment. The United States of America only gave a finite number of Bradleys to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, with a contingency. And that would be that not only one crew per Bradley, but alternative crews be trained off of Ukrainian soil for months on end. These crewmembers have had extensive training. I will grant you this, some of them probably have not had a lot of combat experience, but they were put through the ringer on these Bradleys
You put a good crew in there I promise you it would be a different story. I personally spent over 20 years on a Bradley and was a master gunner on one and know first hand the capabilities of can and cannot with a Bradley.
The light armor of a Bradley surviving a t72 125mm cannon and live surprised me
If you call being destroyed in massive numbers, on the battlefields of Ukraine, "remarkable", then yeah, sure, if you say so.
You said it well... MIRACULOUS survival... but, counting on miracles for your survival on a battleground is NOT a good idea.
If that Bradley saved even one life,it's armor did it's job.
I’m guessing that the T-72 round was either a dud HE round or a kinetic penetrator.
Apparently the Bradley wasn’t carrying troops in the back or there would have been casualties.
The engine in the bradley is located near the front thus the IFV was not disabled, and the hit was wide from the turret train but this shot went straight through the troop compartment, hopefully no one was in there at the time...
that hole did not came from tank attack or misile .. the holl is hand made face-purple-crying
@@abdel57quaddi80that is not a hand made hole , it's not a tough vehicle but I'd happily give you an axe to give doing that a shot. Clearly a round of some type hit it as the surrounding area is peened in, it was possibly a dud or defective or just a high energy shell. Neither US or Russian IFV's are designed for tank confrontation
now you add 6 inch rolls of carpet on the top and sides . that will absorb any blast.
Wonderful - the AIFV survived - but what about the infantry squad it was carrying?
Hey- the intent of propaganda is to make War sound rosey for us and awful for them.
2:57 you're leaving out the part where the Bradley got struck in the infantry compartment which is a non-vital area of the Bradley had it of been struck in a different area closer to the front the Bradley probably would have been knocked out of commission
Bro is talking like the Bradley is a God and indestructible
i have works with tanks and i tell u with sure that hole in bradlay its not made from a hit from T-72 ...
yea right, that`s why we have Bradley square because it`s armour is so good
This channel is so desperate 😂😂😂😂😂
True broo 😂😂
How is this channel "desperate" when they frequently post videos from both perspectives? Their last few videos have involved criticizing Western equipment.
Показали пробитие борта бопсом и всю дорогу рассказывают какой Бредли защищенный и классный. Что вообще происходит?
This is the only bradley survived😂
If the T-72 had hit Bradley, there would have been nothing left of it.
Btw the Russian Pantsir DEFENSE system now is equipped with HYPERSONIC missiles.
👽
Nato 🤡🤡🤡
You can stop them? 😂
What I hate most is generalities without any specifics. "The tank has good shells and Bradley has a good armor. Do you know what is the secret to the durability of this armor? The secret is that an armor is good!"
The BFV with a hole punched in it is a very old model compared to the up armored BFV's being showcased.
You clearly haven't heard of the Bradleys square in Zaphorezxia where their destroyed wreckages litter the landscape
The Bradley is basically an aluminum box. That T72 round went straight through and came out the other side. It was as lucky shot that nobody was hit or any systems damaged.
HE-Frag shells have low armor penetration. So the shell blew off the applique armor. While leaving the base armor beneath mostly intact.
basically u are wrong and im tired of explaining to all u internet experts why u are wrong. some of us actually used the bradley in combat. but i am over debating people that make up facts and think they know things when they really don't its like debating a fiction writer that gets to make up what the truth is. just stop with the misinformation. i have spent 2 hours disputing stupid comments on here
Maybe the T72 shell using APFSDS without explosive shell. We can see the plate is broke until inside, but no explosive. Pure armor pearcing like steal arrow, is capable for hit some MBT to targeting crew like driver or gunner.
If T-72 using shell like DM13 shell to bradley with spot like that, i think the entire crew will be burning inside
It is old but does is works and most important it keeps its crews alive.
I am glad many comments share my sentiment. Didnt watch it until the end, but it is a known problem when powerful ammo pierces a vehicle through without causing any real damage neither to the crew or equipment. It simply means wrong type of ammo had been used against it. I take any modern armour light or heavy doesnt have a splinter problem (soft armour layer etc). We dont know what happened to people inside. Bradley is bulky and has a lot of internal volume and height, and it was a crew compartment which is basically empty space.
I dont see how surviving an armour piercing round adds karma points. The same round that hit bradley would have missed BMP entirely.
Lucky, in normady i view a documentary, a sherman has hit by a 88 and survive because its a very, very close range but like this bradley survive because the energy of projectile its very high they simple penetrate the front and the rear blindage without exploding.
RIP to the infantry in the hull. If they were inside... horrible masacre :(
Nice to know it works as intended. Thank you designers.
This entire video is a hodgepodge of generalities and vague statements that never really got detailed. The armor failed completely and location of hit is all luck. Smh
Thers a nasty video showing troops inside a knocked out Bradley trying to get out. The ramp is jammed and they eventually get out via the door in the ramp. One soldier has both lower legs missing.
Это один из лучших БМП в мире,а возможно и самый лучший. Не одну жизнь моих сослуживцев спас.Огромное спасибо США и американскому народу за такую помощь нам.Благодаря такой помощи мы можем защитить свободу наших детей🇺🇦✌️🇺🇦✌️🇺🇦 6:47
Шибче вылизывай... Шибче... И прогнуться при этом не забудь...
@@alexeilebedev7462 Ти мокша зовсім української мови не розумієш.А то що ти українським перекладачем користуєшся це дуже гарно,вам потрібно знати мову та культуру тих людей,котрі вас хрестили і з яких ви пійшли.
Я мокша? 😅😅😅 А ты теперь евроцыган... Кочуете по европе пока не пнут... 😂😂😂 И с какого перепугу ты взял, что я переводчиком пользовался? И вообще к твоему сведению, так сказать для общего развития... Знай, что вашу мойву вам придумали поляки по заказу австро-венгров, на базе польского и южно-русского наречия... Суржика... Потому вы один и тот же предмет в разных областях называете по разному ибо нужно ещё несколько сот лет, чтоб язык устаканился... А про крещение лучше не кукарекай после того, что вы творите в церквях... Сразу видно кто вы... Ну, ниче... Время всё расставит по своим местам...
@@alexeilebedev7462 Ты настоящий мокшанин,сразу видно по манере общения.А то что ты гугл переводчиком пользовался,так это видно по подбору слов.Люди которые знают прекрасную, соловьиную мову совершенно другие слова подставляли в тех предложениях которые ты нагуглил.Не занимайся больше ерундой,вы палитесь на раз два.Меня твои ревностные мокшанские высеры по поводу моей,как я уже тебе сказал,прекрасной-соловьиной мовы вообще не цепляют,а попросту мне на это накакать.Тебе так мокша понятно?Сказки свои что Украину придумал австрийский ген.штаб,а мовы нашей никогда не было,это обычный высер обиженного ватного имперца,которому покоя не даёт то что Украина при желании может забрать у вас всё,начиная от Истории заканчивая вашим влиянием в мире.А мы вам говорили когда-то, делайте что хотите только нас больше не трогайте,и дураку ясно что Украина вам не по зубам,но вы идиоты как обычно сделали всё наоборот.Ну теперь от вашего дутого вяличия и следа не осталось.У вас один шанс остался.Взять ядерные боеголовки и как камикадзе подорвать самих себя,русские же не сдаются 🤣🤣🤣
German 88mm anti tank rounds went thru one side and out the other side of US Sherman tanks during WW2. One or two crewmen were usually killed but if nothing critical in the tank was hit they would wash out the blood and guts, repaint the interior, put 88mm metal patches on the holes and give the tank to a new crew. If the tank got hit again by a German 88mm iit probably caught fire. Sherman’s were known to catch fire when hit because they used gasoline not diesel. Germans nicknamed them Robson lighters the cigarette lighter “that lights every time.” Bradley’s are know ti catch fire and melt because their armor is aluminum not steel.
All people talking about Bradley because the best land defence and army safety in the world USA never fake
Прошлом от ПТУР выдавать за фугас?! Сказочники
It was from Lancet
A tank round leaves lot of mess than that and will make a hole in both sides in a Bradley .this is looks like Bradley hit something like other vehicle by accident.theres no way to survive a direct hit without being completely destroyed or disabled. Don't buy into propaganda like this to cover up failure of Bradley's weak armor againt anti armor weapons
Lancet magnet
Guys, that's not a tank round impact. The hole is not uniform and is way too big. Regardless for what you might think of the Bradley, it is never the less an armored fighting vehicle, requiring some kind of armor piercing projectile in either kinetic or chemical (HEAT) modalities. For either of those options the hole would be uniformly round relatively small. A HEAT round uses a shaped charge to create an explosively formed penetrator of molten slag that bores into the armor. A kinetic round just... bores through the armor brute force as a subcaliber munition. Either way, that's not what a kinetic or chemical hit looks like.
Also, notice the lack of burn marks. There is A LOT of energy released in a tank gun hit, and it leaves burn marks. There are no burn marks here. This damage almost looks like a collision. Was it rammed by a T-72? That might make a hole like that, not sure. That metal is broken off neatly, there's very little deformation of the metal.
A HE round apparently hit it, not HEAT. If it was HEAT, it would definitely not be running. I'm not an expert, however.
Let it be said if an actual t-72 shot a bradly with heat round then the bradly would simply cease to exist. Those rounds can go through like 4 walls of concrete and have a ton of explosive power
A-lot of people don't seem to understand this. The Bradley was developed to redesign the absorbent # of 113's in inventory since 1961. They have been redesigned, repurposed over and over since then, till finally, the upgrades led to the development of a design as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the 80's. Weapons and munitions, like most things evolve and get repurposed and redesigned, because it's cheaper than flat out redevelopment and people in general are pretty unilaterally boring, unimaginable, and use money as an excuse to do less; so we get stuck in design and development, that isn't brand new; but, reimagined. This is a 113 with newly developed modifications... that's all.
not even close to correct. the only similarity is they can carry men in the back. the bradley is nothing like the 113 the armor is totally different and can handle ap rounds up to 40mm in the frontal arc. the 113 can barely stop a 50 caliber. i really wish people would stop thinking they know everything about everything. but u saying its just a upgraded 113 is ignorant at best and as funny as saying the bmp is better. do yourself a favor and read some tech manuals and other litature on the bradley. because i am not going to debate it with u because factually u are totally wrong. and when a know it all argues using anything but facts and can make up things as goes along like a fiction writer debating your type is useless. i will leave it at this. u are wrong on every single non factual point u tried to make
Everyone saying that's not damage form a tank round, Zero chance of it! but- If the troop bay is empty it's entirely possible an improper tank shell such as a Kinetic penetrator can go through both sides of the troop bay inflicting minimal damage to the vehicle and without casualties being inflicted. it's a big ol empty space featuring little if any important parts for the vehicle. Putting it like this- if You had just an empty cavity in Your body that held no vital organs and little if any blood veins and someone Shot a rifle round through it, You'd keep on trucking along.
So the statement was, "That after the strike the crew man continued to operate the vehicle." That appears to be a solid shot strike which hit the transport section where the grunts sit. Either they were very lucky and no one was in there, or the vehicle got a new paint job. I hope it was the former. But the term "the crew man" suggests there were issues with the crew after the strike because the vehicle has three operators.
9 minutes of beating around the bush just in to avoid saying that it was god damn lucky.
That looks like a APFSDS which is not for medium to light armor which mostly explains how it survive the the T-72, if the T-72 fire a HEAT round to the Bradley the Bradley will cook like cooking a stake in a barrel
this gose to show just how tough the m2 Bradley is
It dependson the angle of the shot. If the T-72 round hit there from the forward left of the Bradley, there's just empty infantry compartment behind it. That's assuming no infantry were inside it. But a SABOT or the heat jet from a HEAT round would just clow thru there and the Bradley could fight on or withdraw still mostly combat capable.
The Bradley's hull is aluminum. The T72 round probably passed right through it. If the T72 had been using HEAT rounds instead of sabot, the Bradley would have become a fireball.
HEAT would perform not very well, as the applique armor is a large section of spaced armor.
Our Bradley in Iraq saved our lives more times than i care to remember. Because the Bradleys construction is what saved our lives.
As an old Bradley mechanic from XM2 till the M2A3 piss poor shooting from the T-72 crew......
The newest bigger gun is going to improve it even more. More accurate and a longer range. Do it!
that hole looks like it was done from an old solid iron cannon ball, not a modern anti-tank round. But i guess it made a great backdrop for a video about bradleys
Did this guy really just say that the Bradley AND the T-72 are known for their protection? There is a video of a T-72B3 turret shooting 100 meters or roughly 300 feet into the air. I promise that NONE of the crew survived the violent explosion that would be required to not only launch 12+ tons of steel into the air, but it would also need to have the force to remove all piece connecting it to the tank hull. The 3 man crew is incinerated by the ammunition being ignited. Even if by some small miracle the driver survived this, the resulting fire blast would tear through every part of the tank and kill/burn anything else that could be destroyed by the flames. These are not even close to the same levels of protection considering one is meant to take tank shells and survive, while the other is only meant to take small arms fire and survive.
Then the guy goes into how the Bradley is "one of the most heavily armored and securely protected vehicles globally". No sir... not even in the top 50 of armored vehicles in the world even if you exclude all the variants of the same tanks out there. now, that may ring true in terms of APCs, but you failed to specify that part, so maybe clean that up a bit.
Thats why the Bradley can take a lot of pain
The amount of experts in here is staggering. That isn't a tank round hit or any other kind of hit. It's not. There are no burns and no shrapnel damage. That is a simple impact. The vehicle ran into something or something ran into it. It probably happened in the motor pool.
LIES! as a combat veteran no soldier was in that area when it was hit. they would not survive. I'm a former tanker and I have sat in a Bradley just to see what it was like.
It was hit with a HE frag shell designed for soft targets - wrong round is what saved it
T-72s known for their protection? T-72s are known to be extremely efficient turret tossers.
The Bradley’s armor isn’t made of steel. It is made from a 5xxx series of aluminum.
Oh, come on - you can see the hole beyond the top plate. That shot penetrated and the crew were very, very lucky to survive.
so he basically said "no armor = best armor" the whole time.
its so obivious that if this impact dont killed the mobility it injuried the troop and the turret gunner and maybe also the driver with minimal damge at the engine and the drive
Makes me sick to see our equipment sent to Ukraine for Russia to practice on.
It’s not being used as intended.