| Tango01 | 12 Jan 2015 11:08 p.m. PST |
"It's 1968 and Col. Robert Smith has just wrapped up his presentation. His department has finished designs on a new armored personnel carrier for the U.S. Army—the Bradley fighting vehicle. The Bradley is fast, light and cost-effective. It's the perfect troop transport for a modern army. The generals approve the project. Then one of them realizes something. "With this gorilla in production I guess there's not going to be anything left in the budget for my scout," the general says. He tells Smith to put a turret on top. Make the Bradley a scout as well as an APC…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| haywire | 13 Jan 2015 6:43 a.m. PST |
|
| GROSSMAN | 13 Jan 2015 7:39 a.m. PST |
"If you put a turret on it, people will think it's a tank and shoot at it with a bigger gun" |
| GROSSMAN | 13 Jan 2015 7:40 a.m. PST |
They should do a remake of this with the F-35. |
 javelin98  | 13 Jan 2015 9:50 a.m. PST |
"Best Defense" was also a good one, showing how the boneheaded decisions in the drawing room translated to a disaster in the field. |
| Tango01 | 13 Jan 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed it my friends. Amicalment
Armand |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 13 Jan 2015 10:55 a.m. PST |
The Bradley is one of the worst boondoggles in our time. So will the F-35. |
 Legion 4 | 16 Jan 2015 9:50 a.m. PST |
Well from a former Grunt's POV … and being a former M113 Mech Co. Cdr … The M113 needed to be replaced by something "better", for many reasons. The M2 may not have been the best choice as it was designed as trying to "be every thing to all men" so to speak. However, the recent talk of using the M2 hull without the turret and all weapons systems, may be a good idea. Of course, like the M113, you'd still have at least a .50cal and maybe a few other light weapons on board. I'm particularly favorable to the newer version of Mk.19 GL link … |
| zoneofcontrol | 17 Jan 2015 5:02 p.m. PST |
Would recycling the Bradley hull really work out? The M113 carried a squad plus the crew. The Bradley carries half or less of that. Would dropping the turret add enough passenger space to be worthwhile? You'd need two Bradleys to carry the human payload of one M113. I'm not arguing, just asking. My knowledge of moderns is not up to par with my older toys. I realize that the Bradleys have been in use for quite a while as configured. But with turret gun, TOWs, etc. they filled another gap as well. Would they still be as worthwhile being just a small APC but without the extra punch? |
| zoneofcontrol | 17 Jan 2015 7:29 p.m. PST |
LOL! I just went to you tube to watch the pentagon wars. Boy and they say there is never anything good on TV. After watching it I can now say that I am a complete aficionado on modern fighting vehicles. Enough so to declare that the M2 Bradley is an exact copy of the Israeli Merkava. Well, close enough if you don't take into consideration the size, weight, armor, armament and survivability. Other than that they match up perfectly. |
| Legion 4 | 21 Jan 2015 8:07 p.m. PST |
The M113 carried 11 men. The driver and TC were part of the squad. You only could dismount 9 from the squad. The Driver and TC stayed with the track. An M2 carriers a 9 man squad. When you dismount, the driver, gunner and TC stayed with the track. So you only could dismount 6. A turretless M2 could probably fit an 11 man old TO&E squad. And would be a better option then still using the M113, IMO … |
gets roads for his Team Yankee set-up.
