Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Bradley Fighting Vehicle|
A U.S. Army Bradley in 2004, during the Iraq War.
|Type||Armored fighting vehicle|
|Place of origin||United States|
|Used by||See Operators below|
|Variants||See Variants below|
|Weight||27.6 t (4,350 st)|
|Length||6.55 m (21.5 ft)|
|Width||3.6 m (12 ft)|
|Height||2.98 m (9.8 ft)|
|Crew||3 + variable number of passengers depending on variant|
|Armor||Spaced laminate armor: 30 mm AP and RPG all around protection. explosive reactive armor.|
|25 mm M242 chain gun
TOW anti-tank missile
|7.62 mm M240C machine gun|
|Engine||Cummins VTA-903T diesel
600 hp (450 kW)
|400 km (250 mi)|
|Speed||56 km/h (35 mph)|
The Bradley is designed to transport infantry or scouts with armor protection, while providing covering fire to suppress enemy troops and armored vehicles. There are several Bradley variants, including the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the M3 Bradley cavalry fighting vehicle. The M2 holds a crew of three (a commander, a gunner and a driver) as well as six fully equipped soldiers. The M3 mainly conducts scout missions and carries two scouts in addition to the regular crew of three, with space for additional TOW missiles. The Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, Texas is the CITE Center of Industrial Technical Excellence for the maintenance and repair of the Bradley system.
- 1 Design
- 2 History
- 3 Variants
- 3.1 M2 Bradley
- 3.2 M3 Bradley
- 3.3 M4 Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)
- 3.4 Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle (BSFV)
- 3.5 Warhammer Bradley
- 3.6 M6 Linebacker
- 3.7 M7 Bradley Fire Support Vehicle
- 3.8 Bradley Engineer Squad Vehicle
- 3.9 Bradley Battle Command Vehicle
- 3.10 M993/M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System Carrier Vehicle
- 3.11 Black Knight
- 3.12 Turretless Bradley
- 4 Operators
- 5 See also
- 6 References
- 7 Further reading
- 8 External links
The Bradley was developed largely in response to the Soviet BMP family of infantry fighting vehicles, and to serve as both an armored personnel carrier (APC), and a tank-killer. One specific design requirement was that it should be as fast as the then new M1 Abrams main battle tank so that they could maintain formations while moving.
The M2/M3's primary armament is a 25 mm cannon that fires up to 200 rounds per minute and is accurate up to 2500 m, depending on the ammunition used. It is also armed with twin missile launchers for TOW antitank missiles. The missiles, capable of destroying most tanks out to a maximum range of 3,750 metres (12,300 ft), can only be fired while the vehicle is stationary. The Bradley also carries a coaxial 7.62 mm medium machine gun, located to the right of the 25 mm chain gun.
The Bradley is equipped with the M242 25 mm chain gun as its main weapon. The M242 has a single barrel with an integrated dual-feed mechanism and remote feed selection. The gun contains ammunition in two ready boxes of 70 rounds and 230 rounds each for a total of 300 ready rounds and carries 600 rounds in storage (in the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant) or 1200 stowed rounds (in the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle variant). The two ready boxes allow a selectable mix of rounds, such as the M791 APDS-T (Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot (with) Tracer) and M792 HEI-T (High Explosive Incendiary (with) Tracer) rounds. The tungsten APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm, being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks at close range. Subsequent ammunition developments resulted in the M919 APFSDS-T (Armor-Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer) round, which contains a finned depleted uranium penetrator similar in concept to armor-piercing munitions used in modern tanks. The M919 was used in combat during the 2003 invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
It is also armed with an M240C machine gun mounted coaxially to the M242, with 2,200 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition. For engaging heavier targets (such as when acting in an anti-tank fashion), the Bradley has a TOW missile system on board, which was changed to fire TOW II missile from the M2A1 model onwards. M2 infantry Bradleys also have firing ports for a number of M231 Firing Port Weapons (FPWs), providing a means for the occupants to fire from within the vehicle and replacing the top-side gunners on the M113-based Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicles (ACAV), though the M231 is rarely employed. Initial variants had six ports, but the side ones were plated over with the new armor configuration on the A2 and A3 variants, leaving only the two rear-facing mounts in the loading ramp. No versions of the M3 CFV carry firing port weapons, though early versions had all six firing port mounts fitted and plated over, while newer versions retain the two ramp mounted firing ports, though again plated over.
The use of aluminum armor and the storage of large quantities of ammunition in the vehicle initially raised questions about its combat survivability. Spaced laminate belts and high hardness steel skirts have been added to improve the side protection of later versions, although this increases overall weight to 33 tons. In friendly fire incidents in Desert Storm, many crew members survived hits that resulted in total losses for lighter U.S. Marine Corps LAV-25 vehicles.
Bradley Urban Survival Kit
The Bradley Urban Survival Kit (BUSK) is an upgrade similar to the M1 Abrams TUSK kit. It decreases the vulnerability of Bradleys in urban threat environments. The kit includes a more powerful spotlight, a wire mesh protector to keep the optics from getting scratched and non-conductive arched strips of nylon that push away fallen electrical wires (power line protection) that would endanger crews, a remote controlled 5.56mm machine gun on the turret, additional armor on the underside, and a bullet resistant transparent shield for the commander outside the turret. It also includes sensors and a software package to quickly detect when components are wearing out and simulation software so that the gunners could train more realistically. The BUSK kit adds 3 tons to the vehicle's weight. Because of this, a major upgrade was planned. Additional upgrades included a stronger 800 horsepower engine, a larger main gun, lighter armor, improved sensors and cameras to give a 360 degree view outside, and an improved fire extinguisher system. This system was supposed to enter service in 2012, but the Bradley simply became too heavy and the kit did not make it survivable enough. A newer BUSK III kit is now available for Bradleys incorporating a blast-proof fuel cell, a blast resistant driver seat, a turret survivability system, and an emergency ramp release. This kit was recently installed on 236 M2A3 Bradleys in South Korea and is scheduled next to be added to Bradleys of the 4th Infantry Division.
The Bradley is highly capable in cross-country open terrain, in accordance with one of the main design objectives of keeping pace with the M1 Abrams main battle tank. The Bradley was initially designed to float by deploying a flotation curtain around the vehicle, allowing it to "swim" at a speed of 4.5 miles per hour (7.2 kilometres per hour). Later armor upgrades have negated this capability.
One of the early issues that drove the development of the IFV was the need to have a vehicle that could serve in a high-intensity conflict in Europe, which was feared might include the use of NBC weapons. To work in such an environment, an IFV would have to have a life-support system that protected from outside contaminants while allowing the soldiers to fight from inside the vehicle. The earliest specification, from 1958, called for a vehicle of no more than 8 tons, mounting a turret with a 20 mm autocannon and a 7.62 mm machine gun, with sealed firing ports for 5 infantry gunners.
The first U.S. Army IFV design was the XM734, a modified version of the M113. A commander's cupola and passenger firing ports were added. The second design was the XM765 Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle, based on the M113A1 chassis. The upper sides of the vehicle were sloped & spaced steel armor plates were added to improve protection. In addition, firing ports for the passengers were added and a M139 20 mm cannon was added to the commander's cupola.
In 1963, the U.S. and West German governments began work on the MBT-70 design and an IFV companion project was the Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV-70). The contract was handed to the Pacific Car and Foundry Company which delivered the XM701 prototype in 1965. The prototypes had the following characteristics: weight of 25–27 tons (depending on an aluminum or steel hull); 425 HP diesel engine; a 2-man turret with a 20 mm gun & 7.62 mm MG; crew of three plus nine infantry equipped with firing ports; a built-in toilet; armor that was proof against Soviet 14.5 mm MG fire beyond a certain range; a collective and overpressure CBR system; amphibious. The filtration system provided a shirt-sleeve environment until the passengers dismounted, after that they could not re-pressurize without fear of contamination, but they could plug their suits into the vehicle's filtration system. The vehicle was 9 ft high (2.7 m), 20 ft long (6.1 m), and 10 ft wide (3.0 m). After testing, the vehicle was criticized for its poor mobility and excessive weight and size -it could not be carried aboard a C-130 or a C-141 Starlifter). New specifications were written in 1965.
In 1967, the public display of the BMP-1 caused additional interest in the MICV-70 program, which concluded its studies in 1968. However, continued disagreements on specifications continued to slow down development.
At this time, the Army looked at two alternate vehicles that could be fielded more quickly. The FMC company had developed an IFV version of the M113, which had a one-man turret mounting a 25 mm gun, a sealed environment, and firing ports. The vehicle weight was 15 tons. The U.S. Army rejected it due to limited mobility, which would have prevented it from keeping pace with the proposed MBT-70. However, the design was purchased by the Dutch and Belgian governments. The other alternate vehicle was the West German Marder, which mounted a 20 mm autocannon, two 7.62 mm MGs, relatively strong steel armor, and full CBR protection. The U.S. Army rejected it due to it not being amphibious, too large and heavy for air transport, and too expensive.
The MICV program continued on and, in 1972, a new request for proposals was issued. This was won by FMC, who began construction of the XM723 prototype, which was completed in 1973. The XM723 weighed 21 tons, had spaced aluminum armor proof against 14.5 mm fire, had a crew of three plus eight infantry, firing ports for the infantry, and a one-man turret with a 20 mm gun. The commander sat inside the hull. In order to adapt the XM723 to be usable in a reconnaissance role as well as an IFV, the turret was replaced in 1976 with a two-man turret mounting a 25 mm Bushmaster cannon and TOW missiles (this was the MICV TBAT-II design). A two-man turret design put the commander in a position with a better view of the battlefield. The TOW missiles would give the vehicle a strong anti-armor capability. The value of anti-tank missiles had been well established in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. There was an added political advantage in that the TOW missiles made it an easier sell to Congress as it was a whole new capability not possessed by the M113.
We in TRADOC...decided to put the TOW on the MICV because we realized that if we did not put the TOW on the MICV, we would probably never have a MICV.— General Don Starry, Army magazine, 1987.
In 1977, the MICV TABA-II was renamed the XM2. The scout version became the XM3. The U.S. Congress was questioning the development of the XM2 due to the high losses incurred by BMP-1s in the 1973 war and suggested the development of a more heavily armored vehicle. The Army argued against this due to concerns about cost, weight, and development time.
Almost every army you look at is ahead of the American Army, as far as taking care of our infantry. The Russians, are ahead of us, the German, are ahead of us, the Dutch are ahead of us, the French are ahead of us, the Yugoslavians are ahead of us. Almost everybody has a better infantry vehicle than the U.S. Army.
We would have been better off in 1963 when we started to just build the MICV immediately. Are we to start over again? My guess is that if you start over again, you will have a 10 percent increase in effectiveness and 50 percent increase in cost.— General William E. DePuy, testimony to Congress, 1977.
In 1977, Congress ordered two new evaluations of the IFV program, one by the GAO and one by the Department of the Army, under General Pat Crizer. The GAO report was critical of the XM2's height, mobility, complexity, lack of clear doctrinal use, and lack of CBR protection. Based upon this criticism the OMB deleted M2/3 funding from the budget for the 1979 financial year. In 1978, the Crizer report asserted that the basic design was consistent with doctrine and development of an IFV with superior characteristics would be costly and pose significant developmental risks. An additional study, the IFV/CFV Special Study Group, evaluated whether an improved version of the M113 could be used instead of the M2/3 IFV. Their conclusion was that extensive redesign would be necessary for even marginal improvements in M113 derivatives. In October 1978 Congress reauthorized procurement funds.
The XM2/3 passed the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council Milestone II review in 1979 and final approval for production came from the Secretary of Defense on 1 February 1980.
In 1993, one of the military inspectors, Col. James G. Burton released his book The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard, exposing from within how the army had falsified test results during the development. This was picked up in the satirical film The Pentagon Wars released in 1998.
The Bradley, named after World War II General Omar Bradley, consists of two types of vehicles, the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. The M3 CFV was originally planned to be named after General Jacob L. Devers, but it was decided the Bradley name would apply to both, since both vehicles are based on the same chassis (they differ in only some details). The M2 carries a crew of three and a six-man infantry squad. The M3 carries the crew of three and a two-man scout team and additional radios, TOW and Dragon or Javelin missiles.
Even after the troubled development history of the Bradley additional problems occurred after production started as described in a book by Air Force Col. James Burton, which was adapted for the 1998 film The Pentagon Wars starring Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes. Burton advocated the use of comprehensive live fire tests on fully loaded military vehicles to check for survivability. The Army & Navy agreed and established the Joint Live fire testing program in 1984.
When testing the Bradley, however, disagreements occurred between Burton and the Aberdeen Proving Ground's Ballistic Research Laboratory, which preferred smaller, more controlled, "building block" tests. They claimed such limited (and according to Col. Burton, completely unrealistic) testing would "improve the databases used to model vehicle survivability" as opposed to full tests with random shots that would provide a far more accurate picture of its performance under real battlefield conditions, but produce less useful statistical data. In addition, Burton insisted on a series of "overmatch" tests in which weapons would be fired at the Bradley that were known to be able to easily penetrate its armor, including Russian ordnance. Burton saw attempts to avoid such tests as dishonest, while the BRL saw them as wasteful, as they already knew the vehicle would fail. The disagreements became so contentious that Congressional inquiry resulted. As a result of the tests, additional improvements to vehicle survivability were added.
The first combat unit to be equipped with Bradleys (four M2s and six M3s), in March 1983, was the 1st Battalion, 41st (Mechanized) Infantry, 2nd Armored Division. Several years later, the unit commander, Lt. Col Franklin W. Trappnell, Jr., became the Army's system manager for the Bradley program.
As of May 2000, a total of 6,724 Bradleys (4,641 M2s and 2,083 M3s) had been produced for the U.S. Army. The total cost of the program as of that date was $5.7 billion, and the average unit cost $3.2 million.
During the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. A total of 20 Bradleys were lost—three by enemy fire and 17 due to friendly fire incidents; another 12 were damaged. The gunner of one Bradley was killed when his vehicle was hit by Iraqi fire, possibly from an Iraqi BMP-1, during the Battle of 73 Easting. To remedy some problems that were identified as contributing factors in the friendly fire incidents, infrared identification panels and other marking/identification measures were added to the Bradleys.
In the Iraq War, the Bradley proved vulnerable to improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) attacks, but casualties were light with the crew able to escape. In 2006, total losses included 55 Bradleys destroyed and some 700 others damaged. By 2007, the Army had stopped using the M2 Bradley in combat, instead favoring more survivable MRAPs. By the end of the war, about 150 Bradleys had been destroyed.
The U.S Army first intended to replace the Bradley as part of the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles program, which started in 1999 and was cancelled in 2009. In 2010, the Army started the Ground Combat Vehicle program to replace the Bradley with the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but the GCV was cancelled in 2014. Informal discussions for the next follow-up effort have been dubbed as the Future Fighting Vehicle (FFV), but no official development has commenced. The Army is taking a measured approach to the FFV concept as they study what capabilities they want and what technologies are available and affordable before committing to a future design. As of October 2014, it is largely a science and technology development effort to explore options while pursuing engineering change proposals for existing armored vehicles. Specific details have not been decided on, and the Army plans to decide if the FFV program will become an effort to produce actual vehicles, a potential Bradley replacement, or more improvements for the Bradley in 2016. If a clean-sheet design is chosen, the FFV program could be started as early as 2019. Various science and technology projects are being studied to see if they are mature enough to be integrated onto a new vehicle, and components developed for the GCV may be worked into other designs. In May 2015, General Dynamics and BAE Systems, the two prime contractors involved with the GCV, were awarded contracts to develop design concepts for the FFV. Development of the FFV is expected to take place between 2022 and 2031.
The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) consists of five variants: the M2, M2A1, M2A2, M2A2 ODS (Operation Desert Storm improvements) and M2A3. Their main mission is to provide protected transport of an infantry squad (up to six passengers at a time) to critical points. Aside from carrying mechanized infantry into close contact with the enemy, the M2 can also provide overwatching fire to dismounting infantrymen. It is adequately armored to provide protection against small arms fire and artillery, and able to combat any vehicle on the battlefield using its TOW or Stinger missiles. The M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle also has six external firing ports for the squad M231 Firing Port Weapon on the M2 and M2A1 versions only. Four ports were removed on the sides of the vehicle on the M2A2-A3 versions, and only 2 in the ramp remain. These ports allow passengers to engage the enemy from within the protection of the Bradley vehicle. These firing ports are almost always covered by additional armor kits and it is rare to see a Bradley with them operable. The proper use of M231 FPWs was rare in practice.
The M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV) is virtually identical to the M2 Bradley except that it is equipped as a cavalry/scout vehicle. Instead of holding six infantrymen in the payload compartment, it is designed to seat two scouts and hold additional radios and ammunition. Also lacking are the six external firing ports present on the M2 Bradley IFV.
M4 Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)
The C2V is based on the M993 MLRS carrier chassis (see below) and is designed to provide an automated tactical command post and operations centers. It was designed to replace the M113-based M577A2 Command Post Carrier. Mass production was cancelled in late 1999. Around 25 vehicles were finally produced for the US Army.
Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle (BSFV)
The BSFV is designed specifically for the carriage and support of a Stinger MANPADS team. The MANPADS-Under-Armor (MUA) dismounted Stinger team concept of the BSFV left the operators exposed, so it was replaced by the M6 Linebacker, which also retained the dismounted Stinger missile capability.
Modified M2A2 ODSs with the TOW missile system replaced with a two-tube Javelin Missile System, and ISU (Integrated Sight Unit) modifications for increased anti-tank lethality, without the need to continually track the target.
An air defense variant, these vehicles are modified M2A2 ODSs with the TOW missile system replaced with a four-tube Stinger missile system. From 2005 to 2006, M6 Linebackers had their Stinger missile systems removed and were converted to standard M2 Bradley ODS infantry fighting vehicles.
M7 Bradley Fire Support Vehicle
The B-FiST has replaced the existing armored FiST vehicle (FiST-V) platform, the M981 FISTV, in the U.S. Army inventory. The TOW/UA suite is replaced by target location equipment, integrated with the Bradley ISU sight unit. It also carries equipment for use by dismounted observers. There is a hybrid GPS/inertial/dead reckoning navigation system to robustly provide the vehicle location as a reference point.
Bradley Engineer Squad Vehicle
The Bradley ESV enables engineer assets to maintain momentum with the main force while conducting engineer and sapper operations. The ESV is equipped with standard combat engineering equipment and can employ unique mission equipment packages for obstacle neutralization.
Bradley Battle Command Vehicle
The Bradley BCV allows brigade commanders to move around the battlefield away from their command post. The BCV integrates an enhanced command and control communication suite to maintain digital interface with maneuver forces and the Tactical Operations Center (TOC).
M993/M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System Carrier Vehicle
The Black Knight prototype unmanned ground combat vehicle being developed by BAE resembles a tank and makes extensive use of components from the Bradley Combat Systems program to reduce costs and simplify maintenance. It is also designed to be remotely operated from a BFV commander's station while riding mounted, as well as being controllable by dismounted infantry.
For the U.S. Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program to replace the M113, BAE offered a variant of the Bradley. The AMPV submission is a turretless Bradley chassis, providing greater cargo space, increased armor, and an upgraded engine and electrical systems. For increased protection, a V-shaped bottom replaces the flat base. The AMPV also has several modular roof sections to adapt to each role. For fuel efficiency, BAE is considered using a hybrid-electric drive, similar to their GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It was suggested that surplus Bradleys could be retrofitted into this version. The Turretless Bradley competed against General Dynamics' Tracked Stryker.
BAE said they have the capability to build up to eight AMPV platforms per day, the same as the Bradley during the height of its production, as both vehicles share the same production line and supply base. A mortar carrier vehicle can be converted from the original Bradley in 40 days. Underbody blast tests demonstrated that AMPV survivability requirements could be met with a Bradley platform. BAE projected their AMPV submission to have similar operating costs to the M113 and lower costs than an M2 Bradley, as the platform's most expensive components are related to the omitted turret. To better accommodate modern electronics, the Turretless Bradley has 78 percent more internal space than the M113 and two 400 amp generators.
- http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/ "6,720 vehicles of both types have been fielded."
- Cooke, Gary W. "M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle". Retrieved 2011-03-03.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- "M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles". Military Suppliers and News. Retrieved 2011-03-03.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- Bradley M2 / M3 Tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicles, USA. Army-Technology.com. Retrieved on August 1, 2008.
- "Contracts". U.S. Department of Defense. 25 April 2011. Retrieved 29 April 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>[dead link]
- A Quiet Farewell For the M-2 Bradley - Strategypage.com, March 5, 2012
- BUSK III - Army Recognition.com, July 10, 2012
- R. P. Hunnicutt (1999). Bradley: A History of American Fighting and Support Vehicles. Presidio Press. ISBN 9780891416944.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- Michael Green & James D. Brown (2007). M2/M3 Bradley at War. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-2523-0.
- Haworth, W. Blair (1999). The Bradley and How It Got That Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-30974-4.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- Burton, James G. The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1993), ISBN 1-55750-081-9.
- Weiner, Tim. "Corrupt From Top to Bottom". New York Times, 3 October 1993.
- Diane L. Urbina. "Lethal beyond all expectations: The Bradley Fighting Vehicle"—in chapter 12 of George F. Hofmann and Donn A. Starry (editors) Camp Colt to Desert Storm: The History of U.S. Armored Forces, Lexington, Kentucky; The University Press of Kentucky, ISBN 0-8131-2130-2.
- James G. Burton, Col. The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press (1993). ISBN 1-55750-081-9.
- A.C. Colletti (March 31, 1983). "2 AD Combat Unit Receives Bradleys". Fort Hood Sentinel.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- "FMC Gets New Bradley Fighting Vehicle Contract". Associated Press. July 7, 1988. Retrieved October 30, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- "M2A3 and M3A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS)". Federation of American Scientists. May 5, 2000. Retrieved 2014-10-30.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- See the following document (scan)
- . Global Security
- NSIAD-92-94, "Operation Desert Storm: Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams". U.S. General Accounting Office, 10 January 1992. Quote: "According to information provided by the Army’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, 20 Bradleys were destroyed during the Gulf war. Another 12 Bradleys were damaged, but four of these were quickly repaired. Friendly fire accounted for 17 of the destroyed Bradleys and three of the damaged ones."
- L.B. Thompson, L.J. Korb, C.P. Wadhams. "Army Equipment After Iraq". Lexington Institute and Center for American Progress.
- U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment
- The US Army’s armoured vehicle conundrum - Army-Technology.com, 11 September 2014
- US Army, Marines Struggle With Infantry Vehicle Replacements - Defensenews.com, 6 April 2014
- U.S. Army Cautious In Developing Future Fighting Vehicle - Aviationweek.com, 15 October 2014
- Army explores its armored vehicle options - Militarytimes.com, 15 October 2014
- Army Studying Path Forward For Future Fighting Vehicle - Nationaldefensemagazine.org, 16 October 2014
- BAE Systems, GDLS to Develop Design Concepts for the U.S. Future Fighting Vehicle - Armyrecognition.com, 2 June 2015
- New Army Strategy Sees Future Combat Vehicles As Highly Mobile, Highly Lethal - Armytimes.com, 15 October 2015
- Pike, John (2005-06-24). "M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS)". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-07-25.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- "M4 Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)". Fas.org. Retrieved 2013-11-16.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- Jane's C4I Systems
- M6 Bradley Linebacker - Fas.org
- Warhammer Bradley - Usacac.army.mil
- Bradley Linebacker – Army-Technology.com
- BAE Systems - Bradley Combat Systems Electronic Press Kit
- Federation of American Scientists
- Global Security
- BAE Systems Black Knight Archived July 8, 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- About.com Black Knight Baglole, Joel Black Knight - Future Combat
- "Turretless Bradley vs Tracked Stryker". Defense.AOL.com, 2 November 2012.
- "Vendors Pour Funding Into Armored Vehicle Development". Nationaldefensemagazine.com, January 2013. Retrieved: December 17, 2012.
- Army envisions AMPV production spike for emergency contingencies - Janes.com, 22 October 2013
- Industry to Army: The Vehicles You Own Can Perform Future Missions - Nationaldefensemagazine.org, 24 October 2013
- Uparmored Bradley Could Be Tough Enough For AMPV: Testers - Breakingdefense.com, 29 January 2014
- BAE Submits Bradley-based Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) Proposal - Defensemedianetwork.com, 5 June 2014
- US Army Leaders Make Case for AMPV Decision - Armytimes.com, 31 March 2015
- Halberstadt, Hans (2001). Bradley Company. Europa Militaria No.30. The Crowood Press, Wiltshire. ISBN 1-86126-425-9.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bradley IFV.|