Talk:Bradley Fighting Vehicle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle#BAE GCV|GCV IFV]] The anchor (#BAE GCV) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

25mm taking out Iraqi T-72s?

The wikipedia article claims that the 25mm gun of the bradley can take out T-72s at close range, yet the cited link doesn't really support that. It states that M2 bradley took out some T-72s (without specifying how), there's nothing baout "at close range" either. The linked article does mention the APDS rounds as a secret to its success, but its not explicit (and quite dubious) that this refers to the success against the T-72s, and not say... BMPs and T-55s...31.164.58.229 (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not super clear from the source. Fixed. Schierbecker (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disastrously spread out

I do not understand why the M2 and even the M3 have their own pages, which are forced to repeat a lot of the information contained here, and which do not circle back to the more detailed development history on this page. I propose to bring everything back to this page. Podlesok86 (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally agree, the M2 and M3 have minor differences but having them spread out in two pages not only spreads out editors but as well as readers. JebKermun (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The differences are more than just minor. They're both doctrinally used for a different purpose, and substantially different in capabilities. In general, it's preferable to have multiple pages if there's sufficient information to support them, rather than cluttering everything up into one overstuffed location that becomes too long and unwieldy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of vehicles to be delivered to Ukraine

With regards to this, the current info is that the US is sending 59 BFVs to Ukraine, in addition to 50 that were announced previously[1]. If there is no additional info, it should be routine calculation to say the US is delivering 109 BFVs. If not, please include both numbers. I think the IP editor was doing a calculation based on the two press releases. Politrukki (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the number was already fixed, with even better source, while I was typing. Politrukki (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation to Reuters for the 109 figure. It's not super obvious from the press release whether the 59 is in addition to the 50 already sent. Schierbecker (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of the project citation?

Citation 30 states the project cost was $5.7 billion for 6700+ vehicles at 3.2 million a piece. Simple math states the production costs alone are over 51 billion, let alone the development cost. The citations website own citations don't list any prices. Where are these numbers coming from? Either they're wrong or their meaning is ambiguous. 132.175.114.39 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 30 was written in 2000, for a program size of 1602 units. This is why you cannot just use "simple math" to extrapolate a number. If you have a reliable source with updated program costs, we can include it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]