No more M2 Bradleys

[Sith]

Pentagon Wars is an actual full length movie. That is essentially the highlight reel. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

As stated by many here, the development of the Bradley was a perfect example of a run-away vehicle development program. It tried to be everything for everyone and ended up being "master of none". Despite that the Bradley has had a successful service life and many crew members that I have known over the years liked the vehicle.

As far as the TOW goes, it's addition needs to be looked at within the context of the time. There were two attitudes that fed its inclusion. First, (as stated earlier) they wanted as much tank killing firepower as they could fit on the battlefield to be there. The Soviets armored horde just across the inter-German border was not to be taken lightly. Hence, the more ATGMs they could field the better, it did not matter what kind of vehicle it was on. Second, was that in many circles the ATGM was still considered to be the "king of the hill". At the time, reactive and ceramic armors were just being introduced on any scale. However, the impact these armors would have, had not caught up with the thinking entirely. For the previous couple of decades, ATGMs were considered to be the death of tanks. There is a reason why some countries diverted from heavier tank designs in the 60's (AMX-30, Leopard 1). It was thought that the ATGM could kill any tank, hence, it was not worth investing in heavier vehicles. This was also the factor that led to cannon launched ATGMs being developed and rushed into production. Anyway, by the late 70's the reality that ATGMs were no longer dominant had not set in entirely. Therefore, there was great appeal to the idea of mounting TOWs on the Bradley.

While my profession has taken me in an different direction. I am a historian by training, with a focus on the Cold War. So it is with a little sadness that I see the Bradley begin it's journey into retirement. While it will continue service well into the future, the first step has been taken. Simply put, it has reached its time.

FWIW, I have always loved that Challenge cover. To me, it perfectly captured the feeling of T2K.

[Raellus]

I've read that BAE's proposed M113 replacement, the AMPV, is essentially an uparmored Bradley chasis without a turret. Last I heard, it was the submission chosen by the U.S. Army. If that is indeed the case, the Bradley will live on for a long time to come.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/pro...e-vehicle-ampv

Originally Posted by Sith

This was also the factor that led to cannon launched ATGMs being developed and rushed into production.

Caveat: for NATO.

The Soviets developed canon-launched ATGMs to out-range NATO tank guns.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It's worth mentioning too that the Soviets generally had a lower level of metallurgical skill & knowledge and couldn't create tank guns to match the pressure allowable by Western manufactured guns.
This meant that for a similar calibre, the Western gun/ammo combinations typically out-ranged the Soviet guns/ammo and had better velocities & penetration too. The Soviet adoption of gun-launched ATGWs was partly to try and match the Western gun ranges and penetration.
Out-ranging NATO tank guns might have been a planned feature or a happy bonus but if the Soviets believed that NATO tanks were superior to their own, it was the only way the Soviets would have been able to strike NATO tanks before NATO tanks could bring effective fire on them.

[Sith]

Yes, Thank you Raellus. That was the Western context.

[Raellus]

So it looks like the U.S. Army's taking another look at the German Puma IFV as potential Bradley replacement.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...cted-years-ago

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Soviets developed canon-launched ATGMs to out-range NATO tank guns.

The Soviets developed cannon-launched ATGM because, due to poor aiming mechanisms, optics, computers, and stabilization, their long-range gun accuracy sucks.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The Soviets developed cannon-launched ATGM because, due to poor aiming mechanisms, optics, computers, and stabilization, their long-range gun accuracy sucks.

All that plus their ammunition simply did not have the range of comparable Western gun/ammo. I've mentioned elsewhere that their metallurgy wasn't as capable as in the West and one aspect of that was that their tank guns could not reach the same chamber pressures as Western tank guns. The consequence of that was lesser range compared to similar Western tank rounds.

[Panther Al]

For what it is worth, when it comes to Bradley replacements I wouldn't hold my breath. The way the procurement process is set up these days, they will never be able to get a program all the way through before becoming an over budget disaster.

That said, over the last few years, more than a few CV90's have been seen running around various testing grounds here in the US.

[swaghauler]

Considering how long we kept the M113 in "mothballs," I won't moan the "loss" of the Bradley just yet.