About Those Bradleys, And Other Things

I found the recent announcement that the US would be sending 50 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to Ukraine to be underwhelming. I just couldn’t see Bradleys as suited for the type of industrial scale warfare that’s going on in Ukraine. Bradleys are an older design that is outgunned by the Russian equipment that has been in use in Ukraine from the beginning of this conflict—although not as out of date as the Vietnam era APCs we’ve been sending. Will Schryver has been quite acerbic on the topic:

Will Schryver @imetatronink

I figure that amounts to about two weeks maximum of Lancet and Krasnopol target practice.

Arthur Morgan @ArthurM40330824

The #UnitedStates will include about 50 #Bradley infantry fighting vehicles in the next package of military assistance to #Kyiv, this decision will be announced on January 6

Will Schryver @imetatronink

I'm sure US Bradley fighting vehicles will prove more resistant to enemy fire against the Russians in Ukraine than they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CannoneerMarine @CannoneerMarine

@imetatronink The Russian 30mm cannon and its fuse will eat through a Bradley like nothing. The Bradley has never faced this before.

Will Schryver @imetatronink

Such utter nonsense. Few if any of them will even *see* Russian armor before they are reduced to a shattered smoking wreck. The Bradley was unfit for high-intensity conflict the moment the first one rolled off the production line. https://t.co/WzJvp4xSIz

Next, I’m going to refer to two posts by Andrei Martyanov. To feed into that I’ll provide three more Will Schryver tweets that are more big picture in character:

Will Schryver @imetatronink

@420Ravens This war the US/NATO concocted against Russia (using Ukraine as its gullible proxy) has aroused in a large proportion of the Russian political/military power base sentiments similar to those expressed by Medvedev. It's the greatest geopolitical blunder in American history.

Will Schryver @imetatronink

With the invention of the global debt-based dollar system, the American Empire conjured the goose that laid the golden eggs of unfettered universal seigniorage -- its fiat enforced by arms, as "necessary". Now the fools have killed the goose and are tearing at the carcass.

Will Schryver @imetatronink

@OrkishAmerican The US has not been able to simultaneously put to sea more than 3 combat-capable carrier strike groups in many years. And, even if they could, the aircraft carrier is an obsolete relic which, in the next great power war, will be quickly revealed as such.

imetatronink.substack.comDinosaurs of the Deep Blue SeaI have long argued the aircraft carrier is an obsolete relic of a bygone era. In so doing, I have been subjected to mocking ridicule by many, and simply disbelieved by most. Only a mere handful of respondents to my carrier-disparaging public statements has concurred with my analysis of the issue.

Don’t worry, you’ll see where this is going.

Yesterday, Andrei Martyanov amused himself by making fun of the Bradley transfer and discussion (in the WaPo) of a possible transfer of M-1 Abrams tanks:

Cleaning My Monitors...

No, really, do they still think in Pentagon that Bradley with its 25-mm Bushmaster and two obsolete BGM-71 TOW ATGMs has a chance on the modern battlefield against something like T-72B3(M), let alone T-90M? These are the tanks which now dominate the battlefield in 404 and that is not even all of the story. Practically all Russian tanks fire not just very respectable guns but also a very nasty 5 km range ATGM called Reflex, not to mention the fact that Russian tank force now has a very good WALL-E looking sidekick known as BMPT Terminator Tank Support Vehicle. And this monster apart from outgunning Bradley with 2 30-mm guns, carries four Ataka ATGMs which are not only supersonic but outrange TOW dramatically. 

I’ll skip Martyanov’s further reflections on the Abrams tank and other Russian weapons systems. He closes the post with reference to an event that Russian President Putin has referred to as “an important, if not momentous, event.” Putin was referring to the deployment of a Russian naval task force to the Mediterranean, including the flagship Admiral Gorshkov, now armed with Zircon hypersonic (and nuclear capable) missiles. Zircon missiles can be used against both naval and land targets and have a range of 1,500 kilometers (930 miles).

Putin was at pains to emphasize that the collective West has no “analogue” to the Zircon missiles. The US has been a latecomer to the hypersonic missile game. Recently there has been a report of a successful US test of a prototype hypersonic missile, but the important fact is that Russia has fully integrated various hypersonic missiles (Zircon is only one) into its military forces on land, sea, and in the air. The US isn’t even close to that capability. From that point of view, Putin is right about the “momentous” character of this deployment. It does, in fact, render US carrier battle groups obsolete. Further, operating out of Russia’s naval base at Tartus in Syria, this is a gamechanger both on land and sea throughout much of the Middle East.

In a video today, Martyanov goes through all of this again. However, beginning about half way through the 30 minute video he gets into a discussion on the meaning of the Zircons in particular that readers with a military bent will find particularly interesting:

Among other things, Martyanov points out that the use of the Zircon missiles allows a Russian force to sink an entire carrier battle group with a relative handful of Zircons. And the US has no defense against this.

I’ll end by linking to the latest from Brian Berletic. The links are to half hour videos, but I’ll paste in Brian’s detailed summaries to provide an idea of what he discusses. He’s always precise and to the point, so if you want more discussion, follow the links:

Western Escalation in Ukraine: Sending in Armor - But is it Too Little Too Late?

- After over a week, the Western media continues talking about Ukraine’s HIMARS strike on assembled Russian troops;

- The focus on political optics inadvertently reveals the lack of strategic and tactical importance of this strike and highlights the lopsided nature of fighting against Ukraine;

- Russia possesses many times more means and opportunities to carry out such strikes and does so nearly daily;

- Western pundits are resorting to increasingly fantastical thinking to solve what they admit is Ukraine’s inability to defeat Russia;

- France has agreed to send an unspecified number of its aging AMX-10 RC light tanks;

- The light tanks are wheeled, have light armor, and will not be able to replace the main battle tanks Ukraine has lost over the last year of fighting;

- The US is contemplating sending Bradley infantry fighting vehicles - even less capable than France’s AMX-10 RC;

- Both Western systems will require special ammunition and maintenance provisions including shipping them to the Polish border each time they break down;

- The Western systems including future transfers of even main battle tanks do not address the real deficiency Ukraine suffers from - lack of artillery and long-range weapons that Russia has in abundance;

Latest US Arms Shipment to Ukraine Cannot Solve Kiev's Fundamental Problem

- The US announced a major military aid package for Ukraine including 50 Bradley fighting vehicles, 18 M109 self-propelled 155mm howitzers, additional MRAP and Humvees as well as additional ammunition for various systems;

- Despite the relatively large size of the package compared with the last several months of aid, the weapons and ammunition fall far short of replacing even Ukraine’s losses let alone granting Ukraine the ability to match or over power Russian forces;

- Ukraine will likely use many of these systems to patch up elite units within its deteriorating brigades;

- Germany and France are also sending armored vehicles, the Mauder infantry fighting vehicle and the AMX-10 RC respectively;

- This is likely paving the way to send additional heavy weapons like main battle tanks;

- These systems collectively are less-than-ideal for Ukraine, logistics, sustainment, and maintenance issues will hinder their effective use in combat, they also will not be arriving in the numbers necessary to replace Ukrainian losses or outmatch Russian forces;

That’s it!