Talk:M2 Bradley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M2 Bradley 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

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

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 articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Suggestion for Merge

This artcle should be merged with Bradley Fighting Vehicle. In fact I'm not sure there is anything significantly different--70.49.186.37 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there were THREE Bradley pages. Due to length, I believe they should be separated. Even though they are only variants, there is wealth of information on both. However, I am not against merging. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the infobox is a M3 CFV and not a M2 IFV. It is actually a M3A2 ODS variant of the CFV Scout1067 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be OK to merge as long as no information on any vehicle is lost. Green547 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote in favor of merging the two articles. -Ramlaen (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to have three separate pages for the Bradley (lots of duplicate information) and support the merge, with most of the information contained in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle being focused on the development. Should the aforementioned article be maintained as the primary page for the Bradley on Wikipedia, with the M2 Bradley and M3 Bradley pages redirecting here. Podlesok86 (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/index.html
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 8 leads to meaningless link.

The article states that the Bradley killed more tanks than the M1 Abrams, and has a citation. But that citation doesn't mention anything about such a comparison, nor specific kill numbers. 58.178.19.232 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M2 Bradley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False statement/weak reference.

"By 2007, the Army had stopped using the M2 Bradley in combat, instead favoring more survivable MRAPs.[13]"

This article may not be a bad reference to the Army getting away from M2s in the Iraq war, but it does not mention dates. The reason I am bringing this up is because I served in the Iraq War in 2008 and 2009 with a platoon that included two Bradleys. I'm sure there is a hard date where we stopped using them going into Operation New Dawn, but it's later than Q1 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankerd18 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported claim in Combat history

"During the Persian Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams."

The Global Security citation for this claim does not support the claim, either the original link or the archived link.
Nor is it supported by the most authoritative resource I've found: "Bradley Is Lethal, but Some System Enhancements Are Desired" in Operation Desert Storm: Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams | U.S. GAO

John Navas (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But above all, the sentence is meaningless. Vital information is missing. For instance:

i) does 'Iraqi armoured vehicles' include IFVs only? If so, one must remember that the main purpose of MBTs is often to fight other tanks, rather than to fight IFVs;

ii) how many Bradleys and how many Abrams were there? If one has e.g. 20 M1s and 200 Bradleys one might expect the Bradleys to score more kills.

iii) what was this difference in kills? Did Bradleys destroy 70% more armoured vehicles, or 20% more, or 0.4% more? 2.36.89.27 (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia captured one

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/captured-ukrainian-m2-bradley-shown-off-on-russian-tv Napalm Guy (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]