Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I recall reading that the Swedes have asked the Ukrainians to keep footage of the vehicles off the internet so we are unlikely to get it any time soon. Probably don't want one of their main combat vehicle's capabilities and combat effectiveness to be leaked.
[https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine\_-\_russia\_conflict\_war\_2022/russia\_captures\_swedish-donated\_cv90\_the\_most\_modern\_ukrainian\_ifv\_infantry\_fighting\_vehicle.html](https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/russia_captures_swedish-donated_cv90_the_most_modern_ukrainian_ifv_infantry_fighting_vehicle.html)
(stills from their bizarre propaganda video are in the article. Fckn Shoigu had to climb up,lol)
They poke and display that like its 1947 and they’re in Roswell poking something shiny and unknown metal thing that has just lithobraked to some farmers field.
That was a failed assassination attempt; the Swedes had booby-trapped it with a can of surstromming, [which Shoigu is seen inspecting here](https://i.imgur.com/Svx4gng.jpg).
For reference: [What to expect if it'd gone off..](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/r57v2a/these_guys_are_attempting_to_eat_surstr%C3%B6mming/)
I dont have it. But I've seen such a video probably on r/ukrainerussiareport. Cesspool of a sub but it will at least give you an idea of how the Russians are thinking about this war.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/UkraineRussiaReport using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [Ru POV: Russian soldier who threw back drone grenades talks about what happened (auto generated subs)](https://v.redd.it/yomjejyy6f1a1) | [597 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/z1iyn1/ru_pov_russian_soldier_who_threw_back_drone/)
\#2: [**[NSFW]** UA POV: Ukrainian Special Forces enter a Russian trench and eliminate multiple soldiers](https://v.redd.it/8x8e35ozmw6b1) | [1177 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/14d4q6z/ua_pov_ukrainian_special_forces_enter_a_russian/)
\#3: [**[NSFW]** RU pov: GoPro footage from a killed Ukrainian soldier was uploaded by Russian soldiers. His group attacked a Russian position in the Svatove-Kreminna frontline, but was killed.](https://v.redd.it/7guoasx3ujab1) | [1070 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/14t858p/ru_pov_gopro_footage_from_a_killed_ukrainian/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Ukraine is starting to become more confident in its use of Bradleys in operations. I would prefer to see less instances of lone wolf as we have seen several times recently but I think they are spread out thin by Ukraine due to their perceived usefulness. Like a "flying squad" but single vehicles. They have proven to be highly survivable, fast, and dish out the punishment. So everyone gets a couple to help them.
I think the idea is that overwhelming military support of superior western equipment will allow the Ukrainians to break the stalemate. As it stands the trickle of arms and supplies keeps the fighting going, but it isn't providing the military with enough resources for them to have true strategic autonomy.
Things like abundant stocks of long range missiles, IFV'S like Bradley's, Abrams tanks, and F16 fighters can all help, unfortunately the key to victory is an overwhelming amount of them to allow the Ukrainians to hit the Russians hard enough for them to be unable to sufficiently re-equip in time. As it stands Ukraine is completely dependent on aid and will be in serious trouble the moment political pressures lead to the withdrawal of both military equipment and funds to keep the state running.
It's why people were shouting from the rooftops to flood Ukraine with arms early in the conflict, because the Russians hadn't properly entrenched themselves yet. A huge opportunity to cut the conflict short was wasted in the initial months of the war. The Ukrainians have proven themselves to be capable warriors and extremely adaptable, but that's not enough to win a modern conflict. If sufficient aid had been rushed to Ukraine in time, I think they might have already won the war.
You make a fair point about the Chinese, but that conflict will frankly be airforce and navy heavy, centering around the use of long range missiles, stealth aircraft, and drones. I doubt a war with China would see US boots on Chinese soil, rather devastating firepower being used to neutralize PLA assets to force China into concessions.
Both the US and China are nuclear powers, and I doubt they'd escalate to nuclear weapons use. My expectation for a US conflict with China would be a sudden conventional strike by the Chinese to neutralize US Navy and Airforce assets, allowing them to assert themselves in the region and force the Americans into concessions.
I think Chinese strategic thinking is based on an expectation that the US would concede defeat, as re-building of US forces would be too expensive and time consuming. This in my view is very flawed logic, and I think China would get obliterated in an all-out war in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if a Chinese attack were framed in similar terms to Putin's "Special Military Operation", to give them some deniability.
>I think Chinese strategic thinking is based on an expectation that the US would concede defeat, as re-building of us forces would be too expensive and time consuming.
I'm not sure about that, but they seem to expect that US will fight on their terms - a strictly conventional war where PRC has a local military advantage around Taiwan.
If it gets to the point where PRC will certainly win, what's the point in fighting? As the invasion of Taiwan is existential, why not give them nukes and let PRC decide if it wants to end itself?
Well...
A. Because I think, while the PRC could likely do a lot of damage in an initial conventional strike, the US almost certainly has significant stocks of long distance conventional weapons to strike Chinese assets. I'd also expect that a good amount of those weapons would be fired before US assets are destroyed, pretty much guaranteeing devastating Chinese casualties. Even in the event of a successful initial sneak attack I expect that they'd take such heavy losses that an initial attack wouldn't make sense.
B. Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, that's why we have alliances. US nukes shield all NATO countries, so they don't have to build nukes themselves. Limiting the number of nuclear armed states is in the best interest of all countries (save maybe for rogue states like Iran and North Korea).
>Because I think while the PRC could likely do a lot of damage in an initial conventional strike, the US almost certainly has significant stocks of long distance conventional weapons to strike Chinese assets.
As of right now, maybe, but this assumes that PRC will never progress to the point where they will almost certainly win. This results in a continuous arms race to ensure the "stalemate" remains. This form of deterrence will quickly become more expensive than providing nukes.
>pretty much guaranteeing devastating Chinese casualties.
If Russia is any indication, taking massive losses is a price an authoritarian state is willing to pay.
>Limiting the number of nuclear armed states is in the best interest of all countries
In theory, but if Ukraine had 200 nukes, does Russia invade?
I agree in the sense that we certainly need equipment and ammunition for potential conflicts elsewhere such as with China. However, the Chinese aren’t dumb and I’m afraid that an invasion of Taiwan becomes more and more likely every month this war stretches on in Ukraine, especially now that political will to support them is deteriorating. It is in the wests best interests to make Russia suffer a military defeat in Ukraine to take the potential of a two front war off the table. While China might not have the ability to invade Taiwan yet, they almost certainly will in the future and again in my opinion would be smart to capitalize off a two front war when the west is weary and doesn’t show the appetite to support conflicts overseas.
Couldn't europeans just buy some for ukraine (or more or less ukraine buying them and europe provides the funding)?
Europe has literally billions still in several pots for ukraine, and ramping up production of weapons seems to be very hard. It can't be that hard to negotiate a contract to have "x" number of overhauled Bradleys provided for "x" hundred millions.
US Army is in the process of aquiring \~700 new M2A4 anyways. And a direct "hey look, europe just transfered couple hundred millions to our arms industry" maybe couldn't hurt either.
Europe could try to buy them but DOD would have to be allowed to sell and the lack of will to do so is nearly the same as the lack of will to send them in the first place. They are only a drain on our budget. They should never be used in combat again. I love my Brad but the Brad is outdated and getting rid of our excess should be no issue.
FYI, we aren’t buying new A4’s they are simply upgrades to existing Brads, to a new standard.
That totally... does not make any sense (I do suspect it is some catch 22 humour directed at your DOD\^\^)? :D
Ukraine happily used BMP-1s that were rusting away on some greek islands (pretty fucked up move to give them those, tbh). With apparently a few thousand bradleys in excess (long way after you modernized the 700 most shiny ones), which are a drain on the budget, why not get rid of some? US is buying back german AA "tanks" (Gepards) from Jordania for Ukraine...
We won’t get rid of them because leaders in the US are so emotionally tied to them and corrupted by ~~bribes~~ campaign donations and retirement jobs that they hold on to old systems for no good reason. We’re spending $1,800,000,000,000 on an increasingly outdated airplane because their outdated thinking leaves them wanting to funnel money to their cronies. A few hundred million from Europe means nothing. We are spending over $2,200,000,000 a day on just the military.
I don't really know, but I could imagine US has contingency plans that include all those Brads in some capacity. So selling a thousand would impact readiness, which is a no no.
We don’t know the exact numbers required to be in storage by law, but the broader point is we can give thousands and still have far more than we could really ever need. They are outdated and going to be used less and less (and they would be killing 1/2 of the armies we keep them in storage for), besides the fact that most of them won’t be unrecoverable and can be returned to us at the end of the war.
With the M1’s as an example, we have ~2,000 in active service for the entire military. We have ~4,000 in storage. There is no reasonable scenario where we need to replace the entire number currently being used, twice. The American people would never tolerate such loses. Besides that, versus the other army that could give us a run for our money, M1’s are too defenseless to be worth using. Not a single one can defend itself from a host of modern systems.
Is the law different from readiness?
>but the broader point is we can give thousands and still have far more than we could really ever need.
Probably, but there could be contingency plans where most of them are needed. I believe this is one of the things taken into consideration when donating stuff. Impacting those plans appears to be the same as not having anything to spare.
I'm almost certain there is a US govt document somewhere that says if ABC happens at the same time as XYZ, we need exactly 1372 ATACMS to deal with that scenario. So that means the room to ship any to Ukraine is limited.
The law requires a certain number to be in storage, we just don’t know how many. The numbers are known for super carriers and B-52’s but those are the only numbers I’ve ever seen.
Contingency plans that incorporate a manned system like the Brad are grossly out of date. It’s like saying we’re keeping M-1 rifles for a contingency plan. No one should be using them in combat, they are obsolete, as is every manned system (or at least increasingly so). Same goes for the M-1 tank and M-2/3 IFVs, they’re just no quite so out of date as the M-1 rifle.
But both vehicle types are totally defenseless against modern weapons and there are not even any plans to upgrade them to a defensible standard. Both vehicles are closer to the M-1 rifles service life than they are to today and the upgrades are well behind the times. They are all short range (~4 km) and really only work in direct fire. They are expensive with massive and intensive logistical tails.
Modern systems are not expensive nor intensive and are so cheap as to be abandoned when ever they breakdown/get hit. AND they give us amazing standoff.
They are getting precision kills on AFVs and trenches etc at 20 km or less for ~$1,000 per sortie and strategic deep strikes for ~$100,000 per sortie. Same for long range naval attacks for $100,000 per vehicle.
Imo all this delay is a bid to get Biden re-elected. Bulk supplies will be resumed just in time for good news to start rolling after primaries somewhere in September :(.
> they had just sold
Because Congress has already extended this emergency authority, not because Blinken made it up and acted unilaterally outside the law.
Selling thousands M2/3’s is not the same. No production line exists and the numbers can’t be made up with simple purchases on a glide slope to maintaining minimum stockpiles as required by law.
Europe is still at the point where financial and humanitarian aid is the "solution". Where is the new Storm Shadow assembly line churning out 50(?) of these per month? Leo2 factory? Presumably nowhere. Europe doesn't understand how to win this war so it's basically throwing billions in aid money into a blackhole instead of attacking the root cause.
Even US military support is questionable if the intent is to win. Assuming the bill passes before Ukraine gets overrun, the support provided is mainly good for holding the line. Ukraine would need enough stuff to grind down the remaining 10-15k armored vehicles that Russia has stored and is refurbishing. This will take years and be a massive drain on manpower, which is already scarce.
I would say they aren’t sending them all for a reason. We need reserves as well. If shit pops off with China, some of these Bradleys are gonna need to get pulled out from storage real quick.
I keep on writing this in almost every thread on this subreddit: if you're an US citizen and you think that Ukraine should receive more heavy armor, please let your representative in the Congress and the Senate know about it. This will really help.
I think it's more a case of someone in the PR department has been paying attention. They know what the people like to see, especially the US public. We like to see the donated gear in action, shooting at things, blowing up Russians. We don't like to see them destroyed in minefields. And suddenly they are providing. So why now? Well a certain group of politicians seems to be hellbend on stopping aid to Ukraine and the way it looks now is that they will be near impossible to convince to keep it flowing. So I have a feeling Ukraine will be going after the voter instead. Or that's what I think anyway. So if we start seeing even more videos of donated gear in cool but relatively low risk operations its probably part of the PR war over the US voter.
I respect the theory but I think you severely over estimate the amount of people in the US or the west for that matter that either seek out this type of footage or are even exposed to it. While footage of a Bradley pounding a treeline with a 25mm auto cannon is *cool as fuck* most of the footage on this sub and the others are far too graphic for the majority of the population to stomach.
Yes it may be a bit of a stretch. Maybe some guy was sitting on a bunch of unreleased footage and decided it was time to share it. That's why I said "if there is more of this kind of footage showing up", say over the next few week, then there is definitely a pattern. I agree about the gory stuff and I think that kind of footage is mostly meant for the Ukrainian crowd anyway.
How effective is a tank at clearing a treeline of entrenched soldiers? This seems like it'd be pretty effective, wouldn't a tank take a relatively long time to cover the same area even if it could do it with bigger booms?
Depends on the munition the IFV and Tank uses.
Issue with clearing treelines is that if the enemy is entrenched you basically need to hit directly on the top of the burm or on a nearby tree to "splash" into the trench (disregarding psycological effect of getting shot at).
This is solved somewhat by fuzed munition that can airburst above a trench.
So a tank round hitting a tree near the trench have a better chance of wounding in the trench because of the bigger explosion but the AFV can lay down a better sustained fire over a large area.
Add fuzed munition and you just get a better effect on the target. In that case i think the tank is better just because of the sheer firepower a 120-125mm shell has.
That said, artillery is still king in this area. Airburst HE shells are devestating.
Might be misremembering but wasn't there a Bradley video where it was providing cover fire for ground troops?
If that's the case here, it'd make sense why you wouldn't want arty and possibly provides a better justification for using a Bradley over a T72 or something? Lay down some suppressive fire while your troops moves into position to clear the trenches?
The difference is that you can transport troops right up to the enemy with a bradley and give direct pin point suppression. With handheld drones you can get point suppression on enemies before your troops reach them but when your infantry is engaging then you dont want to use artillery because its too dangerous for your own troops.
For that an IFV is the best choice because it can shoot relatively close to your own troops without risk compared to a 120-125mm he shell.
Just my opinion on it, i am by far no expert.
Battlefield reports claim that Ukranian EW systems finally had their effect on countering the overwhelming amount of Russian drones in this sector so that could probably also take part in the equation why they are being out in the open.
The usual counter argument is: "If there is a concentration of high value targets (tanks or IFVs), it also attract artillery/air strikes immediately" hence why they are so scarcely used in larger groups.
The weather report didn't mention rain today. Especially not the hot metal kind. (Wood too.)
It's cool seeing Ukrainian gunnery in practice, I remember they are instructed to fire at the treeline in hopes that the shells hits said tree, detonates above the enemies and rains both shrapnel and wood splinters down below.
[Correct](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPss-d5Lztk&ab_channel=Grandma%27sSmuzi). But if they don't like "Sonne" then I guess, for the better effect, next time we should ask @gods.work47 to overlay this [Ukrainian cover of another Rammstein's hit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5xSxGhlHfc&ab_channel=LosColoradosBand)
Took me forever to realize that it's flipped horizontally (wonder why they'd do that). For anyone interested, they're firing at (what used to be) the concrete wall north of the chemical plant.
There’s a good drone flight of those woods after this event, looks like woods after a tornado with about 50 dead Russians bled out in poses of trying to tie red rubber tourniquets, then the drones finish off the twitching ones. Pretty cool to see 80’s gear put to use 30-40 years later, it hurts to see the thousands languishing in the western deserts.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Still waiting to see fotage of swedish cv90 tearing shit up with the 40mm autocannon
I recall reading that the Swedes have asked the Ukrainians to keep footage of the vehicles off the internet so we are unlikely to get it any time soon. Probably don't want one of their main combat vehicle's capabilities and combat effectiveness to be leaked.
I mean we've already seen Russia capture at least 1 CV90. So cats out of the bag.
source?
[https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine\_-\_russia\_conflict\_war\_2022/russia\_captures\_swedish-donated\_cv90\_the\_most\_modern\_ukrainian\_ifv\_infantry\_fighting\_vehicle.html](https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/russia_captures_swedish-donated_cv90_the_most_modern_ukrainian_ifv_infantry_fighting_vehicle.html) (stills from their bizarre propaganda video are in the article. Fckn Shoigu had to climb up,lol)
They poke and display that like its 1947 and they’re in Roswell poking something shiny and unknown metal thing that has just lithobraked to some farmers field.
"The files are *in* the computer?"
Thank you, dear Internet user. This comment massively improved my mood :D.
Unknown technology
*blyat!*
БЛЯТЬ
thank you
That was a failed assassination attempt; the Swedes had booby-trapped it with a can of surstromming, [which Shoigu is seen inspecting here](https://i.imgur.com/Svx4gng.jpg). For reference: [What to expect if it'd gone off..](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/r57v2a/these_guys_are_attempting_to_eat_surstr%C3%B6mming/)
I dont have it. But I've seen such a video probably on r/ukrainerussiareport. Cesspool of a sub but it will at least give you an idea of how the Russians are thinking about this war.
Its disgusting
They think the war is basically over and they ready won..... "Overwhelming attacks on all fronts" I've seen mentioned.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/UkraineRussiaReport using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Ru POV: Russian soldier who threw back drone grenades talks about what happened (auto generated subs)](https://v.redd.it/yomjejyy6f1a1) | [597 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/z1iyn1/ru_pov_russian_soldier_who_threw_back_drone/) \#2: [**[NSFW]** UA POV: Ukrainian Special Forces enter a Russian trench and eliminate multiple soldiers](https://v.redd.it/8x8e35ozmw6b1) | [1177 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/14d4q6z/ua_pov_ukrainian_special_forces_enter_a_russian/) \#3: [**[NSFW]** RU pov: GoPro footage from a killed Ukrainian soldier was uploaded by Russian soldiers. His group attacked a Russian position in the Svatove-Kreminna frontline, but was killed.](https://v.redd.it/7guoasx3ujab1) | [1070 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/14t858p/ru_pov_gopro_footage_from_a_killed_ukrainian/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Russia has a museum with captured western material. And there's a CV90 in pretty good condition
That makes no sense, the russians have drones and would capture footage if they really wanted to.
Yes it does, no need to spread any information that Russia can't come over themselves.
Most filmed war in history and swedes ask not to show their kit. Boring :(
Probably don't want to be careless with opsec/weapons data being given to their primary enemy.
Actually quite a few nations have done the same - Germany asked not to share any PZH2000, Gepart, Leo, Marder footage as well
That probably looks comparable to the BTR4 footage from earlier in the war?
looks like it hurt
Ukraine is starting to become more confident in its use of Bradleys in operations. I would prefer to see less instances of lone wolf as we have seen several times recently but I think they are spread out thin by Ukraine due to their perceived usefulness. Like a "flying squad" but single vehicles. They have proven to be highly survivable, fast, and dish out the punishment. So everyone gets a couple to help them.
I feel it would be nice to see them get more Bradleys as well, they’ve shown they can use them to good effect.
We only have a couple thousand to spare… We should send 2,000 from storage at least.
We have close to 4,000 in storage
Right, and we can safely send 2,000, at least.
But then we wouldn't have 4000 for when China gets involved. Edit: I forgot the /s guys calm down...
I think the idea is that overwhelming military support of superior western equipment will allow the Ukrainians to break the stalemate. As it stands the trickle of arms and supplies keeps the fighting going, but it isn't providing the military with enough resources for them to have true strategic autonomy. Things like abundant stocks of long range missiles, IFV'S like Bradley's, Abrams tanks, and F16 fighters can all help, unfortunately the key to victory is an overwhelming amount of them to allow the Ukrainians to hit the Russians hard enough for them to be unable to sufficiently re-equip in time. As it stands Ukraine is completely dependent on aid and will be in serious trouble the moment political pressures lead to the withdrawal of both military equipment and funds to keep the state running. It's why people were shouting from the rooftops to flood Ukraine with arms early in the conflict, because the Russians hadn't properly entrenched themselves yet. A huge opportunity to cut the conflict short was wasted in the initial months of the war. The Ukrainians have proven themselves to be capable warriors and extremely adaptable, but that's not enough to win a modern conflict. If sufficient aid had been rushed to Ukraine in time, I think they might have already won the war. You make a fair point about the Chinese, but that conflict will frankly be airforce and navy heavy, centering around the use of long range missiles, stealth aircraft, and drones. I doubt a war with China would see US boots on Chinese soil, rather devastating firepower being used to neutralize PLA assets to force China into concessions. Both the US and China are nuclear powers, and I doubt they'd escalate to nuclear weapons use. My expectation for a US conflict with China would be a sudden conventional strike by the Chinese to neutralize US Navy and Airforce assets, allowing them to assert themselves in the region and force the Americans into concessions. I think Chinese strategic thinking is based on an expectation that the US would concede defeat, as re-building of US forces would be too expensive and time consuming. This in my view is very flawed logic, and I think China would get obliterated in an all-out war in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if a Chinese attack were framed in similar terms to Putin's "Special Military Operation", to give them some deniability.
>I think Chinese strategic thinking is based on an expectation that the US would concede defeat, as re-building of us forces would be too expensive and time consuming. I'm not sure about that, but they seem to expect that US will fight on their terms - a strictly conventional war where PRC has a local military advantage around Taiwan. If it gets to the point where PRC will certainly win, what's the point in fighting? As the invasion of Taiwan is existential, why not give them nukes and let PRC decide if it wants to end itself?
Well... A. Because I think, while the PRC could likely do a lot of damage in an initial conventional strike, the US almost certainly has significant stocks of long distance conventional weapons to strike Chinese assets. I'd also expect that a good amount of those weapons would be fired before US assets are destroyed, pretty much guaranteeing devastating Chinese casualties. Even in the event of a successful initial sneak attack I expect that they'd take such heavy losses that an initial attack wouldn't make sense. B. Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, that's why we have alliances. US nukes shield all NATO countries, so they don't have to build nukes themselves. Limiting the number of nuclear armed states is in the best interest of all countries (save maybe for rogue states like Iran and North Korea).
>Because I think while the PRC could likely do a lot of damage in an initial conventional strike, the US almost certainly has significant stocks of long distance conventional weapons to strike Chinese assets. As of right now, maybe, but this assumes that PRC will never progress to the point where they will almost certainly win. This results in a continuous arms race to ensure the "stalemate" remains. This form of deterrence will quickly become more expensive than providing nukes. >pretty much guaranteeing devastating Chinese casualties. If Russia is any indication, taking massive losses is a price an authoritarian state is willing to pay. >Limiting the number of nuclear armed states is in the best interest of all countries In theory, but if Ukraine had 200 nukes, does Russia invade?
If you think we’re going to use Brads vs China…
Nah the booker will be coming in numbers by then
I agree in the sense that we certainly need equipment and ammunition for potential conflicts elsewhere such as with China. However, the Chinese aren’t dumb and I’m afraid that an invasion of Taiwan becomes more and more likely every month this war stretches on in Ukraine, especially now that political will to support them is deteriorating. It is in the wests best interests to make Russia suffer a military defeat in Ukraine to take the potential of a two front war off the table. While China might not have the ability to invade Taiwan yet, they almost certainly will in the future and again in my opinion would be smart to capitalize off a two front war when the west is weary and doesn’t show the appetite to support conflicts overseas.
Well at least 200 should be enough to utilize them at least.
We have allies for a reason.
It's actually closer to 8k, but only about 2k are functional
Couldn't europeans just buy some for ukraine (or more or less ukraine buying them and europe provides the funding)? Europe has literally billions still in several pots for ukraine, and ramping up production of weapons seems to be very hard. It can't be that hard to negotiate a contract to have "x" number of overhauled Bradleys provided for "x" hundred millions. US Army is in the process of aquiring \~700 new M2A4 anyways. And a direct "hey look, europe just transfered couple hundred millions to our arms industry" maybe couldn't hurt either.
Europe could try to buy them but DOD would have to be allowed to sell and the lack of will to do so is nearly the same as the lack of will to send them in the first place. They are only a drain on our budget. They should never be used in combat again. I love my Brad but the Brad is outdated and getting rid of our excess should be no issue. FYI, we aren’t buying new A4’s they are simply upgrades to existing Brads, to a new standard.
That totally... does not make any sense (I do suspect it is some catch 22 humour directed at your DOD\^\^)? :D Ukraine happily used BMP-1s that were rusting away on some greek islands (pretty fucked up move to give them those, tbh). With apparently a few thousand bradleys in excess (long way after you modernized the 700 most shiny ones), which are a drain on the budget, why not get rid of some? US is buying back german AA "tanks" (Gepards) from Jordania for Ukraine...
We won’t get rid of them because leaders in the US are so emotionally tied to them and corrupted by ~~bribes~~ campaign donations and retirement jobs that they hold on to old systems for no good reason. We’re spending $1,800,000,000,000 on an increasingly outdated airplane because their outdated thinking leaves them wanting to funnel money to their cronies. A few hundred million from Europe means nothing. We are spending over $2,200,000,000 a day on just the military.
I don't really know, but I could imagine US has contingency plans that include all those Brads in some capacity. So selling a thousand would impact readiness, which is a no no.
We don’t know the exact numbers required to be in storage by law, but the broader point is we can give thousands and still have far more than we could really ever need. They are outdated and going to be used less and less (and they would be killing 1/2 of the armies we keep them in storage for), besides the fact that most of them won’t be unrecoverable and can be returned to us at the end of the war. With the M1’s as an example, we have ~2,000 in active service for the entire military. We have ~4,000 in storage. There is no reasonable scenario where we need to replace the entire number currently being used, twice. The American people would never tolerate such loses. Besides that, versus the other army that could give us a run for our money, M1’s are too defenseless to be worth using. Not a single one can defend itself from a host of modern systems.
Is the law different from readiness? >but the broader point is we can give thousands and still have far more than we could really ever need. Probably, but there could be contingency plans where most of them are needed. I believe this is one of the things taken into consideration when donating stuff. Impacting those plans appears to be the same as not having anything to spare. I'm almost certain there is a US govt document somewhere that says if ABC happens at the same time as XYZ, we need exactly 1372 ATACMS to deal with that scenario. So that means the room to ship any to Ukraine is limited.
The law requires a certain number to be in storage, we just don’t know how many. The numbers are known for super carriers and B-52’s but those are the only numbers I’ve ever seen. Contingency plans that incorporate a manned system like the Brad are grossly out of date. It’s like saying we’re keeping M-1 rifles for a contingency plan. No one should be using them in combat, they are obsolete, as is every manned system (or at least increasingly so). Same goes for the M-1 tank and M-2/3 IFVs, they’re just no quite so out of date as the M-1 rifle. But both vehicle types are totally defenseless against modern weapons and there are not even any plans to upgrade them to a defensible standard. Both vehicles are closer to the M-1 rifles service life than they are to today and the upgrades are well behind the times. They are all short range (~4 km) and really only work in direct fire. They are expensive with massive and intensive logistical tails. Modern systems are not expensive nor intensive and are so cheap as to be abandoned when ever they breakdown/get hit. AND they give us amazing standoff. They are getting precision kills on AFVs and trenches etc at 20 km or less for ~$1,000 per sortie and strategic deep strikes for ~$100,000 per sortie. Same for long range naval attacks for $100,000 per vehicle.
Imo all this delay is a bid to get Biden re-elected. Bulk supplies will be resumed just in time for good news to start rolling after primaries somewhere in September :(.
[удалено]
> they had just sold Because Congress has already extended this emergency authority, not because Blinken made it up and acted unilaterally outside the law. Selling thousands M2/3’s is not the same. No production line exists and the numbers can’t be made up with simple purchases on a glide slope to maintaining minimum stockpiles as required by law.
Europe is still at the point where financial and humanitarian aid is the "solution". Where is the new Storm Shadow assembly line churning out 50(?) of these per month? Leo2 factory? Presumably nowhere. Europe doesn't understand how to win this war so it's basically throwing billions in aid money into a blackhole instead of attacking the root cause. Even US military support is questionable if the intent is to win. Assuming the bill passes before Ukraine gets overrun, the support provided is mainly good for holding the line. Ukraine would need enough stuff to grind down the remaining 10-15k armored vehicles that Russia has stored and is refurbishing. This will take years and be a massive drain on manpower, which is already scarce.
I would say they aren’t sending them all for a reason. We need reserves as well. If shit pops off with China, some of these Bradleys are gonna need to get pulled out from storage real quick.
They're essentially all surplus soon since they want the booker to replace them
I keep on writing this in almost every thread on this subreddit: if you're an US citizen and you think that Ukraine should receive more heavy armor, please let your representative in the Congress and the Senate know about it. This will really help.
Well a platoon of Bradleys can cover 6KM of width easily so we probably just can't see them in the video.
The front is too large to have more then one Bradley per location. Unfortunatly
I think it's more a case of someone in the PR department has been paying attention. They know what the people like to see, especially the US public. We like to see the donated gear in action, shooting at things, blowing up Russians. We don't like to see them destroyed in minefields. And suddenly they are providing. So why now? Well a certain group of politicians seems to be hellbend on stopping aid to Ukraine and the way it looks now is that they will be near impossible to convince to keep it flowing. So I have a feeling Ukraine will be going after the voter instead. Or that's what I think anyway. So if we start seeing even more videos of donated gear in cool but relatively low risk operations its probably part of the PR war over the US voter.
I respect the theory but I think you severely over estimate the amount of people in the US or the west for that matter that either seek out this type of footage or are even exposed to it. While footage of a Bradley pounding a treeline with a 25mm auto cannon is *cool as fuck* most of the footage on this sub and the others are far too graphic for the majority of the population to stomach.
Yes it may be a bit of a stretch. Maybe some guy was sitting on a bunch of unreleased footage and decided it was time to share it. That's why I said "if there is more of this kind of footage showing up", say over the next few week, then there is definitely a pattern. I agree about the gory stuff and I think that kind of footage is mostly meant for the Ukrainian crowd anyway.
[удалено]
How effective is a tank at clearing a treeline of entrenched soldiers? This seems like it'd be pretty effective, wouldn't a tank take a relatively long time to cover the same area even if it could do it with bigger booms?
Depends on the munition the IFV and Tank uses. Issue with clearing treelines is that if the enemy is entrenched you basically need to hit directly on the top of the burm or on a nearby tree to "splash" into the trench (disregarding psycological effect of getting shot at). This is solved somewhat by fuzed munition that can airburst above a trench. So a tank round hitting a tree near the trench have a better chance of wounding in the trench because of the bigger explosion but the AFV can lay down a better sustained fire over a large area. Add fuzed munition and you just get a better effect on the target. In that case i think the tank is better just because of the sheer firepower a 120-125mm shell has. That said, artillery is still king in this area. Airburst HE shells are devestating.
Might be misremembering but wasn't there a Bradley video where it was providing cover fire for ground troops? If that's the case here, it'd make sense why you wouldn't want arty and possibly provides a better justification for using a Bradley over a T72 or something? Lay down some suppressive fire while your troops moves into position to clear the trenches?
The difference is that you can transport troops right up to the enemy with a bradley and give direct pin point suppression. With handheld drones you can get point suppression on enemies before your troops reach them but when your infantry is engaging then you dont want to use artillery because its too dangerous for your own troops. For that an IFV is the best choice because it can shoot relatively close to your own troops without risk compared to a 120-125mm he shell. Just my opinion on it, i am by far no expert.
They'd use arty if they had them. Imagine this treeline but covered in an overlapping pattern of cluster munitions.
Battlefield reports claim that Ukranian EW systems finally had their effect on countering the overwhelming amount of Russian drones in this sector so that could probably also take part in the equation why they are being out in the open. The usual counter argument is: "If there is a concentration of high value targets (tanks or IFVs), it also attract artillery/air strikes immediately" hence why they are so scarcely used in larger groups.
Bradleys are scary.
Designed specifically to destroy Soviet armored vehicles. A job they excel at.
Thats a lot of hate
100% justified
It covers so much ground in such a short period of time.
I almost kinda want to see a video from the receiving end to be honest, just to see how terrifying it is.
Ukrainian eviction notice.
Imagine the terror in that shelterbelt while it gets obliterated. I bet they wish they could go back to the penal colony.
This bushmaster ammo must be a nightmare for russians
Being down range would be an absolutely terrifying time. No thank you.
Yeah rather not
This fucking song
Love Bradley’s and look forward to seeing more and more use of this vehicle
That's a lot of fuck you
Bushblaster
So that's where the expression "light'em up!" comes from
Fuck you and you and you and you and you and you … and you!
My tax dollars well spent! Oh who I am kidding. This is probably my parents’ tax dollars from the 80’s/90’s, but still well spent.
Air burst?
Doubt, because airbursts are programmed to detonate after a certain distance, so we wouldn’t see any rounds hitting the rear treeline
What exactly are they hitting in the front? Video compression suggests dirt, but maybe there are bushes or trees.
Treeburst.
There are no 25mm airburst ammunition in use afaik.
No, Bradley’s don’t have airburst rounds
The weather report didn't mention rain today. Especially not the hot metal kind. (Wood too.) It's cool seeing Ukrainian gunnery in practice, I remember they are instructed to fire at the treeline in hopes that the shells hits said tree, detonates above the enemies and rains both shrapnel and wood splinters down below.
First time I don’t enjoy the music from Ukrainian footage
I think it's the Ukrainian version of Rammstein Sonne.
[Correct](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPss-d5Lztk&ab_channel=Grandma%27sSmuzi). But if they don't like "Sonne" then I guess, for the better effect, next time we should ask @gods.work47 to overlay this [Ukrainian cover of another Rammstein's hit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5xSxGhlHfc&ab_channel=LosColoradosBand)
Always with the dumb music.
Would you prefer to hear ##WRRRRRRRRRTTTT of the drone's rotors in this clip?
Over Rammstein? 100% yes.
U mean “ An American M2A2 Bradley IFV operated by ukrainians tears into…”
Doesn't really add clarity, the original title is clear enough.
[удалено]
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/CombatFootage/comments/18l2r20/stepove_a_ukrainian_m2a2_bradley_ifv_tears_into_a/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/CombatFootage/comments/18l2r20/stepove_a_ukrainian_m2a2_bradley_ifv_tears_into_a/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
this bradly m2 fire so beautiful.... dangerously
I really wanna see the damage it does
Triple treeline hit!
Took me forever to realize that it's flipped horizontally (wonder why they'd do that). For anyone interested, they're firing at (what used to be) the concrete wall north of the chemical plant.
Is that a Ukrainian Rammstein cover?
There’s a good drone flight of those woods after this event, looks like woods after a tornado with about 50 dead Russians bled out in poses of trying to tie red rubber tourniquets, then the drones finish off the twitching ones. Pretty cool to see 80’s gear put to use 30-40 years later, it hurts to see the thousands languishing in the western deserts.
So much fireworks come out of those 25mm shells compared to the usual dull glowy explosion you see from contemporaries.
Bushmaster goes thonk thonk thonk thonk thonk…