Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
Moving away from the Stryker/MGS controversy, can I ask what Ken's - or WilF's - criticism of the Bradley is? (the "how it would have done in Europe," statement) I've heard very little criticism of the vehicle from those who have used it in combat; the critiques resemble the HBO movie "The Pentagon Wars" about its brutal procurement and teething process. . .
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.

Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
With regard to tires vs. tracks, that debate has been going on for decades. It will continue to rage for decades precisely because there are pros and cons to each solution.
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.