Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

RPG's


EricW

Recommended Posts

He tried to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (now called the M-2 tank) because it's cost spiraled out of sight and it failed so many performance tests.... like when the thing got so heavy it would barely run and would sink like a tool box when driven into water.  The solution?  Lighten it.... by removing most of it's steel armor and replacing it with aluminum (seriously).

The Bradley, is an APC, and no one should think it's going to have enough armor to stop everything. It replaced the M113 (same company built those), that had aluminum hulls only and no armor (unlike the Bradley). They're meant to stop shrapnel, and small arms. And I think the armor is being improved all the time - I'll never stop a main 120MM Sabot, but hopefully it'l stop more of the smaller crap.

The M113 only had a 50 mounted up top, (at least the M113A2's I was in), the only way to shoot was unbutton, and be outside the vehicle, and 7.62's (.308's) would go right through the side if fired at 90 degrees (I don't know where the angle of deflection is).

The Bradley was a great improvement given the choice. Can it stop a heat round (or more)? No, but it can stop all (most?) rifle and automatic weapons rounds. And they can fire while buttoned up.

The defense dept comes up with the max weight for the vehicles so they can be air transported, etc.

My .02, I agree they need more work, but they're better than what we had before.

"The Bradley was a great improvement given the choice. "

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I know what the original specs for the Bradley were and it could easily have met those if FMC didn't have their head up their rears. I also realize a Bradley is better choice than a half-track with a .50 mounted on top, but the only relevant questions are:

1) Is the Bradley what it should be?

2) is it worth the ridiculous price the Army pays for it?

I would humbly submit the answer is a resounding NO to both questions.

There is an old saying that an elephant is simply a mouse built up after the military gets done with it's specifications. The Bradley is the best example of that I've seen. The concept lost sight of the core mission of the vehicle (to provide safe troop transport) and mutated into a tank-wannabee with too much crap. As the unit got heavier and heavier, weight had to be removed and gues what weighs the most: the steel armor plating. Bottom line, the Bradley is basically a lightly armored rolling ammo dump with about twelve soldiers inside sitting next to the ammo.

One of the most ridiculous "specs" added on was that the Bradley had to "swim"..... ie, drive across a river. That was "solved" by the use of a "swim skirt" which requires three people get out, inflate it, secure it to the Bradley like a giant life preserver, and then it can "swim"... as long as the water isn't choppy, because tht will swamp it.

The point I was making is that building a vehicle which can carry twelve soldiers with a high degree of safety and reliability ain't rocket science... and for what the Army pays for the Bradley, they could probably buy a dozen of them from BMW.

"The Bradley, is an APC, and no one should think it's going to have enough armor to stop everything. "

CORRECTING ONE THING YOU WROTE: the Bradley project started out as an APC (armored personnell carrier) but as the cost got so high it was nearly equal to the Abrahams M1-A1, the Bradley was re-classified as the M-2 tank. Even though it is so lightly armored and undergunned it would not last two seconds in a battle with an actual tank, it still is classified as one to justify it's ridiculous price tag. BTW: the deployment scenario for the Bradley in such a combat environment (where enemy tanks are present) is that it will be escorted by two M1-A1's to keep it from being slaughtered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danger, Will Robinson, Major thread drift!

If we wish to discuss armored vehicle design, intent and utilization, we can. Start a thread and make it relevant to competition, or at least non-political.

We have drifted far from the original post EricW put up..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...