Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
... can I ask what Ken'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
To amplify a bit, the vehicle was the result of a bitter parochial battle between the Armor and Infantry branches and their respective schools. Armor wanted a tank based PC with a low silhouette; Infantry, ever afraid of Armor gaining control of 11B (or 11M) spaces, objected -- the result of all that was the M2 / M3 which didn't really make anyone all that happy. Compromises seldom do...

In fairness to the vehicle, it had to satisfy a lot of conflicting requirements and the current edition is vastly improved over the initial issue -- the comment at the Armor School at the time was that, in Europe, BFV would stand for "Burning fighting Vehicle." That due to a huge number of 125mm guns that would be aimed at it. While it has done well in the LIC environment it is not ATGM proof (very few things are) and only the latest iterations offer much RPG protection. Each successive improvement, A1, A2, A3 has been beneficial, no question -- but it is effectively unproven in HIC.