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. . .

Regards,

Matt
I believe the critism is that a system that is meant to move with and fight with tanks, and looks alot like a tank, but has APC armor, even if it his heavy by APC standards, is going to suffer horrible loss rates against a capable Military with strong AT capability. Case in pont may be that while reviews of the Bradley HAVE in fact been positive, it has not had much HIC experiance and the loss rates of BMD type vehicles has been high in the conflicts they have participated in. If Isreal had ever used Bradleys, we might have a better idea if the big war concept of the IFV was sound. I personally believe that Armor division APC's should be based of the tank chassis with tank level armor, but there is very little real data about this either, so my preferance, or belief, is only that.
Reed