In the briefest of terms, from a conceptual view confused about what it does. It's designed to fight along side MBTs' yet lacks MBTs protection, and firepower. It carries too few men and is far too big.Originally Posted by gute
The problems with the concept provide the same problems with doctrine.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Israel must be on the right track with the Namer ICV - believe it is based on their MBT.
It's the way to go, if you've been trained like an Israeli. Yes, it has near identical mobility to their MBT, as it uses the same chassis and running gear, with similar power to weight. I've climbed all over one and visited a platoon of them that was bouncing around the Golan. They're impressive.
If you took almost any MICV, ditched the turret, added more armour in place of it, and increased the dismount seating to 8-10, then you'd be in business.
...but the application of the vehicle is as important as the vehicle itself. I think MICVs are just a dumb idea, but obviously has merit if skilfully employed, by good men, against an inferior opponent.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
What Wilf said. I am particularly horrified at the
overall size and the wasted space. For huge vehicle to carry only six dismounts -- five if you leave one to pass 25mm ammo up to the turret as is the norm is borderline criminal IMO. That goes to only three or four if you're short a man or two in the squad (which is typical). The height of the vehicle makes it a shot or missile magnet. It is over-armed for its role; the TOWs encourage tactical misuse. It's range limited...
It's supposed to be an infantry carrier -- it's not, it's a light tank. Too light...
The vehicle was a compromise in too many respects. Instead of the needed heavily armored, accompany the M1 vehicle (like a Namer) AND a battle taxi for volumes of Mech infantry (M-113 updates) AND a decent Cavalry Scout vehicle (M-113 would also work for that...) we got a compromise vehicle on a drug deal between the Chief of Infantry and the Chief of Armor. The former would support buy of the M1; the latter would support buying the M2 and its M3 variant. Both agreed to give up something, Armor the Future Scout Cavalry System and Infantry the XM-8 Protected Gun system. Bad deal all 'round...
It's perhaps noteworthy that the two Cavalry Regiments in Europe at the time of adoption called the M3 Cavalry BFV the 'burning fighting vehicle' contending there'd be a trail of hulks all over Europe if the USSR were to attack. They also sensibly lobbied to get rid of that humungous turret and replace it with a .50 cal overhead weapons station (thus allowing 7-8 dismounts...) to lower the profile.
Some U.S. commanders removed the Bradley from the first line (2003) and let them move behind the MBTs because the threat of 60's RPGs became too intense.
HAPC + cheap APCs is the way to go.
Got a reference for this? First I've heard of it. My friends that took Bradley's on the Thunder Runs, and multiple rotations since all talk about how survivable they are.
The most recent source I recall was a monograph on armoured recce (or cavalry). Maybe I'll find it.
I have no clue who had what when but could
the various mods make a difference? IIRC, the base and A1 mods differed only in missile fit but the A2, A2(ODS) and A3 were all successive upgrades with increased survivability as a goal??? Dunno...
I do know that many guys from both the 2d and 11th ACRs at the time the Wall came down were not Bradley fans...
I've read of 2ACR in 1991 leading with M1s vs M3s (IIRC, at 73 Easting).
Never seen anything about it in 2003. By then, most or all should have been at least M2A2, right?
Dunno...
I was at Knox when that deal was made and was never a Bradley fan so I'm not sure who had what variant. I think 3 ID should've had A2 if not A2(ODS). Someone here will know -- Mike Few will for sure...
All active units had M2A2's (ODS) by 2001. I know b/c I was in the last priority "legacy/AOE" division and we even had them then. 4ID/1 CAV had the A3 version by the late 90's,IIRC. They also had the M1A2's.
Posting Permissions
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball,
Bookmarks