_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Braille Scale
1/72 and 1/76 Scale Armor and AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Quick Look at the Revell M2/M3 Bradley
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 01:44 PM UTC
I finally got around to picking up the new Revell kit #03143 M2/M3 Bradley (normally referred to by the men who manned them as "A-Nothings" or "A0" to differentiate it from the later A1, A2, A3). At first glance, the majority of the kit looks identical or perhaps similar to their earlier kit, the M2A2/M3A2 Bradley (although some of the earliest kits only made the M2A2 and did not include parts for the M3A2).

This kit contains parts to make either the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle or M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. If Revell had done their homework, they would have added two small flat parts and adjusted the instructions and advertised this kit as an M2/M3/M2A1/M3A1 Bradley. A Bradley fan would have bought four of these to make all of the early Bradley variants.

I see a couple of errors in the instruction sheet right off. The kit includes the both the infantry and cavalry vehicle type of top cargo hatch, part 45 and part 108 respectively. They direct you to use the infantry style on the M2 and the cavalry style on the M3. The problem is that the cavalry style cargo hatch made its first appearance on the M3A1 and on the subsequent M3A2 and M3A3.

The M3 A-Nothing used the same plain cargo hatch as the entire M2 (A0/A1/A2/A3) series.

There is a similar error in the rear ramp. The M2 had two firing ports in the rear ramp. The M3 had the same ramp with the unused firing ports plated over from the inside. The ports were still evident on the outside. Revell directs you to use parts 106 and 107 to plug in these holes. They should be left open. On the M3A1 and later models, the cavalry version had a ramp manufactured without any firing ports

The side infantry firing ports were deleted from the Bradley beginning with the M2A1. If you leave off these ports and add a small strip of sheet styrene to replicate the armor used to cover the deleted ports, you could then model an M2A1. Now put on the cavalry style cargo hatch and use the ramp plugs to get an M3A1.

All in all it looks like a pretty good kit that will help me complete my collection of 1/72 scale modern US armor.
DJC
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: January 10, 2005
KitMaker: 82 posts
Armorama: 45 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 08:29 PM UTC
Robin

I'll keep your post in case I ever get the urge to model the Bradley range! With the Dragon kits included there's certainly a few options now and the idea of a demonstrating the evolution and variations of an AFV family has merit.

Are the "A-Nothings" still in service or have they been replaced or re-conditioned as A-Somethings?

I wonder if we'll see an MLRS kit to expand the range?

David
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 11:56 PM UTC
While I do not discount what one of the mechanized units in one of our state National Guard units might have, in the active component, the M2/3 and M2A1/M3A1 were replaced by the M2A2/3 and M3A2/3 during the 1990s.

I did notice that Dragon has plenty of unused parts in their M2A2/M3A2 series to confirm that they have different variants due out.

An MLRS would be an interesting kit. Also the B-FIST and Linebacker as well as the engineer version of the Bradley would be an easy way to expand from the M2A2 line.
ex-royal
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: May 03, 2003
KitMaker: 1,009 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 12:03 AM UTC
HI Robin,
Thanks for the heads up...any chance you can add some pics and add it to the reviews? Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Bryan
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 01:21 AM UTC
I owe a couple of reviews for UM kits sent to me by Rowan (samples sent by Squadron) before I start any reviews on kits I purchased myself.

I do have plans on dragging out one of the Revell M2A2 kits and doing a side-by-side build.
Epi
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: December 22, 2001
KitMaker: 3,586 posts
Armorama: 2,556 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 01:32 AM UTC
Dave,
To back up what Rob said, yes, there are still. as you put it, "A Nothings" in inventory. Well, "A0+'s" to be exact. Texas National Guard still uses them.

This might change though or is in the work of changing. We have A2's waiting to get swithced with the A0+'s and since we changed from the 49th Armored Division to the 36th Infantry Division, the Bradley's might go away all together and we become a Light Infantry Division.
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 04:30 AM UTC
Somewhat :
What differences are there between A0s and A0+?

Jeff
Epi
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: December 22, 2001
KitMaker: 3,586 posts
Armorama: 2,556 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 04:36 AM UTC
Main differneces are internal. It mostly has to do with the TOW system. Updating it from Basic TOW to TOW2B. There ar no differences in the hulls or turret, just the elctronics of the turret.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 04:51 AM UTC
I also believe that the A0+ removes the side firing port weapon fittings on the M2. The problems with the firing ports is that you couldn't hit anything and the fumes made breathing difficult, even when the fume extractor was working properly.
 _GOTOTOP