HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Veterans (Group) » Bradley Replacement to Ou...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:54 AM

Bradley Replacement to Outweigh Abrams Tank

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/11/15/bradley-replacement-to-outweigh-abrams-tank/




Bradley Replacement to Outweigh Abrams Tank
By Matthew Cox Thursday, November 15th, 2012 1:18 pm
Posted in Land

The new weight estimate, released by the Congressional Budget Office, mean that the service’s replacement for the outdated Bradley fighting vehicle would be heavier than an M1 Abrams tank and weigh more than two current Bradleys.



unhappycamper comment: Be sure to read the comments following the article.

4 replies, 1790 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bradley Replacement to Outweigh Abrams Tank (Original post)
unhappycamper Nov 2012 OP
Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #1
Victor_c3 Nov 2012 #3
Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #4
Victor_c3 Nov 2012 #2

Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:13 AM

1. OMG what a boondoggle! 84 tons of target.

My favorite comment:

"Might I suggest a name for the GCV {Ground Combat Vehicle}? How about "The Mobile Maginot Line"? Assuming it actually proves to be mobile at 84 tons, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 06:23 PM

3. I don't know if you've had any experience with the Bradley in real life

Speaking of mobile targer, the Bradley is one of the tallest vehicles on the battlefield. The height is striking when you compare the Bradley and a BMP (the Soviet/Russian equivalent) side by side.

I have nothing bad to say about the Bradley though. I loved mine and felt absolutely secure in it. I had a car bomb blow up on me and it only put little pieces of shrapnel into the reactive armor. However, some weirdo did think it was a cool idea to fire an RPG through the ramp on the back My driver got a bunch of shrapnel in his back, but nothing else. Maybe they could stand to improve the 360 degree armor protection...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:31 PM

4. Just the old M113 APC's, and then only in the States.

I was 1st Cav in 'Nam, jumped out of Hueys a lot (sometimes into places I'd really rather not have gone), but no PC action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:03 PM

2. I hope it'll have a softer look to it

We had to install some of those KC lights with the smiley faces on our brads to soften the look a little bit.



I was getting nervous that the Army was going to phase out the BFV (Bradley Fighting Vehicle) when they started to field the Stryker around 2003-2004. I had two tanks and two BFVs in my platoon and I was involved in some pretty intense urban fighting. Heavy armored vehicles are invaluable in urban settings. They are great for breaching buildings, eliminating snipers, and for drawing fire. I loved the hell out of my BFV.

As much as I would love to see a bigger and better replacement for the Bradley, I didn't experience any major shortcomings in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread