Bradley vs BMP-3
On April 6, 2025, a surprising report from Russia was released, highlighting a rare instance in which the military reflected on its own practices. A detailed study called “Results of Research Tests of the BMP ‘Bradley’ M2A2 ODS SA [USA]” was released by the 38th Research Institute of Armoured Vehicles, which is based in Kubinka near Moscow and works for Russia’s Ministry of Defence.
The paper, written by researchers A.V. Mushin and V.V. Konyuchenko, looked at an American M2A2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) that was captured and had been used by Ukrainian forces before.
results, which were shared by armored vehicle researcher Andriy Tarasenko on his Telegram channel, showed a clear conclusion: the Bradley, made in the United States, is much better than Russia’s BMP-3 in important areas like protection, firepower, and crew comfort.
For people in the United States, this admission from a major Russian military institution makes them wonder about the condition of Moscow’s armored forces and the ongoing race for better weapons technology in modern warfare.
The report examined the M2A2 Bradley ODS SA variant, which American military fans are familiar with. It was first released in the 1980s as a member of the Bradley family of infantry fighting vehicles. It was created by FMC Corporation (now BAE Systems Land & Armaments) to carry infantry into battle and provide heavy fire support.
The ODS SA [Operation Desert Storm Situational Awareness] upgrade, created after the 1991 Gulf War to learn from it, improved its electronics, optics, and survivability. The Bradley has a 600-horsepower Cummins VTA-903T diesel engine that gives it a top speed of about 40 miles per hour on roads. It weighs about 30 tons.
Engine vs Engine
A 25mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun that can fire up to 200 rounds per minute, a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, and a dual TOW missile launcher for fighting tanks are all part of its arsenal. The vehicle’s armor is made of aluminum and steel, and Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles (BRATs) can be added for extra protection. It can stop a wide range of threats, from small arms to rocket-propelled grenades.
It can hold up to seven infantrymen and a crew of three (commander, gunner, and driver). However, its design puts protection ahead of the lightness and maneuverability of some competitors. On the other hand, the BMP-3, which has been Russia’s main infantry fighting vehicle since the late 1980s, follows a different set of principles.
It was made by the Kurganmashzavod factory and weighs about 18.7 tonnes. The BMP-3 has a 500-horsepower UTD-29 engine that lets it go up to 43 miles per hour on land and 6 miles per hour across water, which is something the Bradley can’t do.
It looks like it has many powerful weapons: a 100mm 2A70 rifled gun that can fire both shells and guided missiles, a 30mm 2A72 autocannon, and a 7.62mm PKT machine gun. Like the Bradley, the BMP-3 can carry three crew members and up to seven dismounted soldiers. However, its lighter weight and ability to go on land and water mean that its armor is thinner.
It is usually made of steel, but optional add-ons can strengthen it. The BMP-3 has a wide range of weapons it can use, but its defense has been a problem for a long time, especially against modern anti-tank weapons. The Russian study didn’t hold back when it talked about these differences. Tarasenko’s summary says that Bradley’s armor did better in several tests.
BRAT Reactive tiles
It was very good at avoiding mines because it had a two-layer hull made of aluminum and steel, as well as a polymer anti-mine mat and shock-absorbing seats. According to the report, the Bradley’s frontal armor could stop 30 mm 3UBR8 rounds that are meant to penetrate armor, but the BMP-3’s front armor cannot.
It was possible to defend the sides with BRAT reactive tiles, which worked even against cumulative grenades like the PG-9VS and, in some cases, the stronger PG-7VL. One striking example was a situation in March 2024 when two anti-tank missiles hit a Bradley and missed, with one hitting its turret’s reactive armor and the other hitting its side.
The Bradley did not sustain any major damage. The BMP-3, on the other hand, has trouble with similar threats unless it has extra dynamic protection, which the report said is not standard. The Bradley was also great at firing weapons. The M242 Bushmaster could fire about twice as fast as the BMP-3’s 30mm 2A42 and 2A72 cannons, which gave it a longer effective range and more hits on targets.
The study found Bradley’s 25 mm sabot rounds could pierce twice as deep as the BMP-3’s 30 mm shells. That gave it a major edge when fighting armored vehicles. The BMP-3’s 100 mm gun can fire explosive shells or missiles. However, it struggles against fast or heavily armored targets.
Its slower firing rate and outdated optics limit its effectiveness. Russian researchers also noted Bradley’s superior accuracy in combat. They credited its thermal sights and laser rangefinder for better targeting. Bradley’s modern fire control system clearly outperforms the BMP-3’s older setup.
Russia’s Ministry of Defense
The crew’s comfort and maintenance needs played a major role in choosing the Bradley. Its front-mounted engine and rear ramp offer more space inside. This design allows easy movement between fighting and troop areas. The BMP-3 can’t do that—its engine sits at the back, and hatches are small.
The report praised how easy the Bradley is to repair and maintain. Its engine, generator, and gun barrel are easier to access, saving time and labor costs. Ukrainian troops agree with this. Voenni, a Telegram news source, shared praise from the 47th Assault Brigade in 2024.
The crew said their Bradley survived a mine blast without any injuries. The BMP-3 is easier to maintain in some ways, but its cramped interior makes long missions difficult. The Russian report highlighted that concern, particularly regarding prolonged battles. Nevertheless, what might be the reason for Russia’s Ministry of Defense to permit the release of such a straightforward report at this time? It’s a strange moment, to be so honest.
Russia used to call the BMP-3 a “best-in-class” machine—an IFV, tank killer, and amphibious carrier in one. This shift suggests internal pressure within the Russian military system. Some analysts think it’s a sign of deeper change in the defense industry. Since 2014, Western sanctions have hurt Russian arms makers.
Now, with mounting losses in Ukraine, the cracks are widening. According to Oryx, Russia will have lost over 760 BMP-3s by early 2025. That’s a massive number—and it highlights the vehicle’s limitations. The report urges modern updates: Western-style armor screens, better 30 mm shells, and new crew layouts.
According to Oryx
These ideas suggest that Russia may adopt concepts from its adversaries to modernize. It wouldn’t be the first time. The Soviets once reverse-engineered the American B-29 to create the Tu-4 bomber. Later, during the Cold War, they copied radar and tank designs too.
This Bradley study could signal a return to that strategy. But the picture is more complex now. Russia’s economy and shrinking industrial base pose serious problems. In January 2025, Rostec admitted sanctions limit access to high-tech parts. BMP-3 maker Kurganmashzavod now runs 12-hour shifts and has tripled production.
They’re trying to replace battlefield losses as quickly as possible. Still, it’s unclear if Moscow can turn these insights into real improvements. Evidence from the battlefield in Ukraine supports the Russian findings. Drone footage has captured some of the most significant battles in the Bradley series.
The 47th Brigade of Ukraine’s M2A2s destroyed a Russian T-90M tank near Avdiivka in January 2024. The tank’s armor was destroyed before it could respond, as shown on the brigade’s Telegram channel. A video from November 2024 captured a Bradley evacuating troops under gunfire. It took three hits but kept going, which shows how durable it is.
The Russian study praised the vehicle’s ability to survive and fire, which is different from the BMP-3, which often loses to drones, artillery, and anti-tank missiles—376 were confirmed destroyed or captured by mid-2024, according to Oryx.
Russian BMP-3 IFV
There were over 100 Bradley vehicles promised by the U.S. as part of a $2.85 billion aid package on January 6, 2023. This was the start of the vehicles’ journey to Ukraine. The M2A2 ODS SA variant was sent out in groups and came with better optics and TOW missiles that were made for Ukraine’s flat, open terrain.
Two Different types of IFVs
The BMP-3, on the other hand, has been an important part of Russia’s arsenal since the fall of the Soviet Union. According to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, over 760 were in use as of early 2025.
Because designers based it on 1980s priorities like speed and river-crossing, the BMP-3 struggles against modern threats. Loitering munitions and Javelin missiles have destroyed dozens of BMPs in Ukraine.
The world uses two different types of IFVs: the Bradley and the BMP-3. The Bradley and its successors, like the M2A4, show that the U.S. approach puts crew safety and firepower first. This is also the view of NATO allies like Germany’s Marder and the UK’s Warrior.
Russia designed the BMP series, which includes the BMP-1 and BMP-2, to be both mobile and flexible. This is because Soviet tactics favored quick offensives and operations that could take place on land or at sea. Other countries have gone in a more mixed direction. Sweden’s CV90 combines heavy armor with agility, and China’s ZBD-04A is based on the BMP-3’s heavy gun design but adds modern electronics.
The call for change in the Russian report indicThis indicates that Moscow understands the limitations of its approach. But closing that gap will take more than one study. This news gives Americans a rare look into how Russia’s military thinks and feels. The enemy now respects the Bradley, which has been a workhorse in U.S. wars from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Conclusion
The Bradley’s performance in Ukraine enhances its reputation, with Oryx reporting 144 tank losses by early 2025—significantly fewer than Russia’s BMP losses. But the story isn’t just about how the Americans won. In it, a competitor admits weakness and hints at change, even though its industry is already struggling under the weight of the war. What will happen next? Will Russia update its IFVs, or will the need to save money keep it stuck with old designs? The answers could change the next phase of armored warfare in places other than Ukraine.
References
- Oryx – Russian Equipment Losses
🔗 oryxspioenkop.com/russian-losses - IISS – Military Balance 2025
🔗 iiss.org/military-balance - Andriy Tarasenko Telegram (RU military)
🔗 t.me/andriyshTime - Voenni Telegram (UA reports)
🔗 t.me/voenniy_obyektiv - U.S. DoD – Ukraine Aid (Jan 6, 2023)
🔗 defense.gov/ukraine-aid-jan6 - Rostec – Russian Defence News
🔗 rostec.ru/en - BAE Systems – Bradley Overview
🔗 baesystems.com/bradley - BMP-2M’s 8km Range vs Bradley in Ukraine
