Author Topic: M2/M3 Bradley (Read 1916 times)

GtoRA2 · « **on:** April 07, 2003, 11:12:42 AM »

Guys
I have heard both good things and bad things about it. Like it does it's job well or it is a death trap...

Is it a good IFV?

How does it compare to the German and British ones?

You see them now and they have all this add on armor?

They look way different then when the first entered service?

What's the scoop?

Monk · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2003, 11:32:01 AM »

Excellent Vehicle, very similar too the British Warrior.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2003, 12:38:46 PM »

Some one was posting up here how it was a death trap and one of the bigest failures of the US army or something...

I know the news media went after it any time they could...

That does not mean much though since they went after the M1 abrams all the time and it has proven to be the worlds best MBT

Frogm4n · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2003, 12:40:38 PM »

it was a death trap untill a congressional investigation on its development fixed that. The knock on it is that it still is to big to be a light tank and to small for a troop transport. Against a modern army it might have problems.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 07, 2003, 12:43:12 PM »

Frogm4n
It is not a tank. Not supposed to fight them as far as I understand it.

What was in the investigation that had to be changed?

Frogm4n · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2003, 12:47:43 PM »

oh, then you never seen the movie on the bradley. Or paid attention to pentagon goof offs.

ra · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2003, 12:58:58 PM »

Quote

oh, then you never seen the movie on the bradley. Or paid attention to pentagon goof offs.

That movie was typical made-for-HBO liberal propaganda. Frikkin Olivia Dukakis played one of the main characters. It was funny how the movie followed the development of the Bradley from the Nixon administration through the Reagan administration, and totally skipped the Carter administration. Not exactly a historic document.

ra

MoMoney · « **Reply #7 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:03:28 PM »

My father was a tank man his whole life(engineer). He was involved with the M1 tank program from the time I can remember. Nothing-and I mean nothing can touch an M1. 70 tons of homogenous steel and depleted Uranium armor. Gas turbine engines + the most advanced targeting system around. 70 tons means its usually TWICE as heavy as a comprable main battle tank. Easily better than any Russian or European Crap......

Frogm4n · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:05:19 PM »

that facts that happened are still facts. it still costed way to much money. it was a death trap that the pentagon tried to push through without changeing. it still cant replace the vehicle that it was designed to replace the m113. Its a damn good vehicle now, but if they didnt make those changes alot of US troops would be dieing in those things right now. Low level rpgs being able to turn the armor into a toxic gas for the troops on the inside sounds real nice.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:13:55 PM »

oh yea and the bradley development was started in 1968 and completed in the early 80's with a cost of 14billion dollars and another 1 billion to fix its problems.

MoMoney · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:14:36 PM »

of course I knew that the M1 had a German Gun. As for the Armor-I didn't know it nor do I believe it...

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:17:39 PM »

I think GS is right, the Chobham armor is layered, with Steel, ceramic and now depleted uranium, but the original idea for the layered armor was British.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #12 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:18:24 PM »

it is english armor, that is old news. why do you think it has such a gay name. chaubum or something.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #13 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:19:42 PM »

GS is quite right about the armor Momoney.

MoMoney · « **Reply #14 on:** April 07, 2003, 01:34:23 PM »

If its English Armor then why in the Hell does it weigh twice as much as any-other Main Battle tank.