Russian Army sees the US-made Bradley M2A2 ODS-SA as a model for future Russian infantry fighting vehicles.

As reported by Andrei_bt on April 6, 2025, the Russian Ministry of Defense’s 38th Research Institute of Armored Vehicles (RIAV), based in Kubinka near Moscow, published an extensive research report titled “Results of Research Tests of the BMP ‘Bradley’ M2A2 ODS SA (USA)”, authored by Mushin A.V. and Konyuchenko V.V. The analysis offers a structured and detailed comparison between the American Bradley M2A2 ODS-SA infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and Russia’s BMP-3, aiming to assess both platforms' technical characteristics, battlefield survivability, and relevance for future Russian armored vehicle development.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

As of April 2025, open-source intelligence reports indicate that approximately eight Bradleys have been captured by Russian forces. Additionally, around 72 Bradleys have been reportedly destroyed during the conflict. (Picture source: US DoD)

Russian forces first captured a U.S.-supplied M2A2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) in early November 2023 near Avdiivka and Stepove in the Donetsk Oblast. Later, in March 2025, two operational Bradleys were seized near Sudzha in Russia's Kursk region following the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces. These captured vehicles have been showcased in exhibitions organized by the Russian Defense Ministry. For instance, in May 2024, an exhibition in Moscow's Victory Park displayed over 30 pieces of Western-made heavy equipment, including U.S.-made M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley IFVs, German Leopard 2 tanks, and French-made AMX-10RC armored vehicles. Such exhibitions aim to demonstrate Russian military successes and have attracted significant public interest. As of April 2025, open-source intelligence reports indicate that approximately eight Bradleys have been captured by Russian forces. Additionally, around 72 Bradleys have been destroyed during the conflict. These figures are based on visually confirmed data and may not represent the total number of losses.

A subsequent analysis conducted by Russia's 38th Research Institute of Armored Vehicles focused on four key areas of comparison: protection (especially under ballistic and mine threat conditions), firepower (including armament precision, penetration capability, and versatility), operational and maintenance efficiency, and ergonomic design features. Their objective is to identify which elements of the Bradley could be used for the development of future Russian infantry fighting vehicles and where the BMP-3 remains more advantageous.

In terms of ballistic protection, the Russian report argues that the M2A2 ODS SA significantly outperforms the BMP-3. The Bradley's construction incorporates a differentiated armor layout using high-hardness steel and aluminum plates, laid out for optimal protection from various engagement angles. Most notably, the vehicle is equipped with the BRAT (Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles) explosive reactive armor (ERA) system, which includes three types of armor blocks: M3 (13.48 kg, 1.18 kg explosive), M5 (33.46 kg, 2.68 kg explosive), and M6 (13.7 kg, 1.32 kg explosive). These factory-supplied modules are mounted on the hull and turret via specialized brackets, enabling quick replacement in field conditions.

The Bradley's construction incorporates a differentiated armor layout using high-hardness steel and aluminum plates, laid out for optimal protection from various engagement angles. (Picture source: US DoD)

According to the research team, the frontal projection of the Bradley with ERA blocks can resist 30mm projectiles from the 3UBR8 round—a level of protection superior to that of the BMP-3’s frontal armor. The side profile of the Bradley withstands 30mm rounds of the 3UBR6 type but not the more penetrating 3UBR8. With the ERA package, the frontal section is also rated to stop cumulative grenades such as PG-9VS and PG-7VL, while the side armor is resistant to PG-9VS but not to PG-7VL. By contrast, the BMP-3’s standard protection is limited to resistance against small arms and fragments, and its upgraded variants do not reach the same threshold of kinetic or shaped charge defense. The glass-protected observation devices and armored sight housings provide additional defense against small arms and shrapnel.

Mine protection is another domain where the Bradley is deemed to have an edge. Its underbelly features a double-layer structure composed of steel and aluminum sheets, complemented by an internal anti-mine polymer mat and blast-absorbing seating for dismounted troops. The researchers conclude that this configuration provides significantly enhanced mine resistance compared to the BMP-3, which lacks similar layered protection and blast-mitigation features. However, the analysts also note a critical drawback in the Bradley’s survivability: its high silhouette and the absence of infrared and radar signature reduction technologies increase its visibility in thermal, visual, and radar detection ranges. This factor, they imply, could affect its survivability in high-threat environments.

The report presents a dual-track evaluation of firepower, separating ballistic performance from tactical utility. On one hand, the Bradley’s 25mm M242 Bushmaster automatic cannon is described as technically superior to the BMP-3’s 30mm 2A42 and 2A72 guns in terms of accuracy and armor penetration (which is not surprising, as the Bradley already used its 25 mm to defeat the most modern tank of the Russian Army, the T-90M). According to the authors, the M242 offers twice the grouping precision, which translates to a higher probability of a hit at longer distances. Its 25mm APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) rounds are reported to deliver double the penetration capability of the 30mm AP (Armor-Piercing) rounds used in the Russian 3UBR8 cartridge.

The Bradley’s 25mm M242 Bushmaster automatic cannon is described by Russians as technically superior to the BMP-3’s 30mm 2A42 and 2A72 guns in terms of accuracy and armor penetration. (Picture source: US DoD)

Despite this performance advantage, the BMP-3 is credited by the Russians with broader combat versatility. It is equipped with a 100mm 2A70 gun that supports both high-explosive rounds and anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), and which can conduct indirect fire from covered positions—capabilities not available on the Bradley. The BMP-3’s coaxial 30mm 2A72 cannon further enhances its firepower, and the presence of two hull-mounted PKT machine guns enables it to engage enemy infantry even after troops have dismounted. This flexibility, particularly in urban or close-quarter scenarios, is considered a strength of the Russian platform. The Bradley does possess a TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missile system, but Russian analysts note that it cannot be fired on the move and must be reloaded manually from inside the vehicle. Moreover, its fixed launcher orientation reduces reactivity during dynamic battlefield engagements. Conversely, the BMP-3 allows ATGM launches while moving and from protected positions.

The report devotes particular attention to the vehicle’s survivability features, but Russian experts acknowledge that the Bradley’s enhanced protection and armoring come at the cost of reduced mobility. The vehicle weighs 32.7 tons with ERA, compared to 22.9 tons for the BMP-3. The power-to-weight ratio of the Bradley stands at 20.0 hp/ton, significantly lower than the BMP-3’s 23.8 hp/ton. The Bradley’s maximum road speed is 61 km/h, with a reverse speed of 10.8 km/h and an operational range of 400 km—figures that trail behind the BMP-3’s 70 km/h road speed, 21 km/h in reverse, and 600 km range. In terms of terrain adaptability, the BMP-3 maintains an advantage due to its lower ground pressure (0.61 kgf/cm² vs. the Bradley’s 0.99), enabling better off-road performance. Furthermore, the BMP-3 is fully amphibious and can reach speeds of up to 9.5 km/h in water, while the Bradley lacks any amphibious capability.

Nevertheless, Russian researchers emphasize that the Bradley surpasses the BMP-3 in terms of maintainability and crew access to vital systems. Critical components, such as the engine (a Cummins VTA903-T680 eight-cylinder V-type diesel engine producing 600 horsepower), generator, turret, and gun barrel are more accessible, enabling quicker replacement and repair. Additionally, the internal layout—allowing passage between the troop and combat compartments—is highlighted as a major ergonomic advantage. These features improve both operational uptime and crew survivability in combat. Ergonomically, the Bradley is also praised by Russians, as they said that it offers superior crew conditions, with more interior space, a rear ramp, fewer obstructions between the commander and gunner stations, and additional features for comfort and utility.

Russian researchers emphasize that the Bradley surpasses the BMP-3 in terms of maintainability and crew access to vital systems, as critical components, such as the engine, generator, turret, and gun barrel, are more accessible, enabling quicker replacement and repair. (Picture source: US DoD)

Surprisingly, according to Mushin and Konyuchenko, the Bradley can only turn in first gear, which suggests that the example analysed was probably not in as good a condition as the Russians assumed. Full left or right deflection of the steering yoke activates reverse movement in the opposite track, enabling pivot turns. However, in reverse, the vehicle’s steering response is the opposite of Russian vehicles: turning the yoke right causes the rear of the vehicle to swing left.

The interior of the Bradley is praised for being more spacious and functionally arranged. The inclusion of an electrically operated roof hatch over the engine bay, foldable troop seats, integrated heating, external stowage racks, and an internal corridor between compartments creates a more comfortable and combat-effective environment. The driver benefits from a thermal sight, and the commander enjoys improved visibility thanks to an elevating hatch with armored glass for panoramic observation. In contrast, the BMP-3’s internal layout is considered more constrained. The separation between the commander and gunner positions, the lack of direct internal passageways, and the reliance on side hatches are cited as limiting factors.

In the concluding part of the report, the Russian analysts propose several design features from the Bradley M2A2 ODS SA that could be incorporated into future Russian IFVs. In the area of protection, they suggest implementing armored and combat-ready ATGM (Anti-Tank Guided Missile) launchers, especially for frontal applications, along with protected commander stations equipped with ballistic glass to enhance observation capabilities while on the move. Regarding firepower, they advocate for the integration of domestically produced APFSDS rounds suitable for 30mm guns, and for the development of a new 30mm automatic cannon with enhanced accuracy and penetration, drawing from the M242's design characteristics such as reinforced barrel structures.

For Russians, the inclusion of an electrically operated roof hatch over the engine bay, foldable troop seats, integrated heating, external stowage racks, and an internal corridor between compartments creates a more comfortable and combat-effective environment in the Bradley. (Picture source: US DoD)

From an ergonomic perspective, the report recommends adopting easier-to-operate hatch mechanisms using dampers, designing hatch covers with multiple locking angles, and installing quick-lock systems. They also highlight the value of adding external steps and handrails for safer and more efficient crew ingress and egress, as well as incorporating multi-directional video viewing systems to improve situational awareness. In the domain of mobility, the authors recommend implementing automated transmission systems to facilitate smoother gear changes and enhance overall drivability. These recommendations are intended to guide enhancements to both current Russian IFV platforms and future armored vehicle programs.

So, what can we learn from this report published by the 38th Research Institute? By offering a comprehensive and technically detailed assessment of the Bradley M2A2 ODS SA from an adversarial perspective, it highlights several advantages the US-made infantry fighting vehicle holds over its Russian counterpart. The Bradley is praised for its superior protection, both ballistic and mine-resistant, thanks to its composite armor layout, BRAT (Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles) system, and underbelly reinforcements including an anti-mine mat and blast-absorbing seats. Its 25mm M242 Bushmaster automatic cannon is described as twice as accurate and twice as penetrative as the BMP-3’s 30mm cannons, with its APFSDS rounds offering improved lethality at extended ranges. The vehicle’s ergonomic layout—featuring internal access between compartments, better crew visibility through armored glass, and enhanced maintainability of major systems—is highlighted as a model for future Russian IFV development. Operationally, the Bradley is considered more maintainable and better designed for crew survivability and onboard functionality, although these improvements come at the cost of increased weight and reduced mobility.

Conversely, the BMP-3 is recognized for its superior mobility, lower ground pressure, and full amphibious capability, which allow it to operate effectively across a wide variety of terrains and water obstacles. The vehicle also benefits from a more diverse armament suite, combining a 100mm gun capable of indirect fire and ATGM launches, a coaxial 30mm cannon, and two hull-mounted PKT machine guns—giving it the flexibility to engage a range of threats, including from covered positions or after infantry dismount. Its higher power-to-weight ratio and longer operational range provide logistical and tactical benefits in maneuver warfare. Despite offering lower protection levels, especially without ERA, the BMP-3's integrated armament and mobility profile are deemed better suited for dynamic, terrain-complex engagements where speed and versatility are decisive.

Despite this performance advantage, the BMP-3 is credited by the Russians with a more diverse armament suite, combining a 100mm gun capable of indirect fire and ATGM launches, a coaxial 30mm cannon, and two hull-mounted PKT machine guns. (Picture source: US DoD)