IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with Bradley M2. It is extremely capable. It is also very expensive and has a large logistic foot print.
Richard Simpkin had some simplistic ideas about the tonnes per dismount man in Mechanised or Armoured Companies. It's not good Operational Analysis but it does brilliantly illustrate a very great problem. Bradley may be effective, but it is also inefficient to the degree that a better balance could have been found. At least Bradley had a properly stabilised cannon, unlike the UK's Warrior, which was bad iteration of the same idea.
I agree. What is more, I've just never seen this as a debate, and I personally feel that when people argue about it, they are really arguing about something else that is far more emotional, and nothing to with tyres versus tracks.
It's like the 9mm v .45 argument. It's utterly meaningless and never about what it's about.
Bookmarks