No more M2 Bradleys

[ChalkLine]

The iconic M2 Bradley IFV appears to have come to the end of its life with the base chassis no longer capable of doing the job. This is sad because to me nothing said 'T2K' more than the M2.
It is to be replaced with an 'optionally manned' vehicle hauling nine men and mounting active defences, a 50mm gun and probably a waffle maker.

[Olefin]

I always thought the Bradley was the perfect vehicle for the game - had a decent cannon, could carry enough TOW's to deal with either the few tanks you might run into or a bunker (since at the start you get a fully armed vehicle), could carry almost the entire group in it and was pretty fuel efficient compared to heavier vehicles

only had one GM that actually gave it the full ammo loadout that usually came with them - as in TOW reloads and the ammo to support the troops that it carried

[ChalkLine]

I was always suspect about the autocannon, they struck me as more a theoretical weapon where you'd probably want a big HE shell for the job. I note most vehicles have moved away from them. Papacat said to me that in Iraq they'd just punch holes in reinforced concrete that were perfect firing positions for the enemy after they got their heads together.

Anyway, the M2 makes me think of this.

[micromachine]

I have never liked this vehicle, as it gives you the capabilty to kill a tank and it is not armoured to stay in the fight, which in less experienced hands leads to massive losses. I have always thought it looked like a Matilda tank crossed with an M901 ITV. Sad to see it leave, I guess it will be a boon to the FMS market.

[ChalkLine]

I don't think armour does much good these days. Especially in T2k high-intensity infantry warfare. Barrage-fired RPGs seem to defeat anything and also overwhelm active countermeasures.

It feels like the pendulum has swung again and the infantry have the best idea: dig a hole

[copeab]

The Bradley is an over-sized light tank carrying an under strength rifle squad. While the BMP could carry more men, it had it's own long list of flaws. In an all-out war, IFVs would have been deathtraps.

[Raellus]

I'm not a Bradley apologist but it's record in Desert Storm and the conventional phase of Iraqi Freedom was quite good, with AFV kill ratios heavily favoring the Bradley. In Desert Storm, Bradley crews racked up quite a few Iraqi MBT kills, both with TOWs and with 25mm APFDS rounds.

IIRC, in one of the worst blue-on-blue cases of Desert Storm, a Bradley was hit by an A-10 Warthog, resulting in the death/maiming of most of the crew.

I concur with Copeab's witty assessment:

"The Bradley is an over-sized light tank carrying an under strength rifle squad."

[ChalkLine]

What is needed is a vehicle capable of carrying a full squad with a low velocity, big bore HE weapon with high elevation. This choice of weapon will be soft on recoil and can destroy bunkers, something the infantry are crying out for. I think 120mm breech-loaded mortars would be most useful. It should have slat armour from the outset to defeat RPGs and the slat armour should conform to the hull and not drag along outside it. It should also have a CROWS III with javelin capability and the M2 HB machinegun.

[CDAT]

I'm not a Bradley apologist but it's record in Desert Storm and the conventional phase of Iraqi Freedom was quite good, with AFV kill ratios heavily favoring the Bradley. In Desert Storm, Bradley crews racked up quite a few Iraqi MBT kills, both with TOWs and with 25mm APFDS rounds.

IIRC, in one of the worst blue-on-blue cases of Desert Storm, a Bradley was hit by an A-10 Warthog, resulting in the death/maiming of most of the crew.

I concur with Copeab's witty assessment:

"The Bradley is an over-sized light tank carrying an under strength rifle squad."

One more who thinks Copeab's witty assessment:

"The Bradley is an over-sized light tank carrying an under strength rifle squad." Is right on.

I also agree with micromachine a bit, I always thought that they should not have had the TOW on them, I did not have issues with the 25mm, but also would have none with a larger gun. But to me the missile was the issue it lets the crew think that they are capable of going toe to toe with a Tank when they are not (if the tank crew is quality, I do not think you would have seen the results of Iraq) or at least not with out some preparation/defensive positions. If you left the ATGM's to the dismounts I think it would be a better vehicle as all the room for the launcher/ammo storage would be used for more troops and/or their equipment. But that is just my thoughts and I have no hard data to back them up.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

CDAT you might not have "hard data" to back up your thoughts on the Bradley but you have spent a number of years "in the industry" so to speak, i.e. enough time in the army to see what's workable and what's not so useful.
I'm like the rest of you in that the trend to stick ATGWs on IFVs struck me as trying to make one vehicle do all things.
And you know what they say, "that dog won't hunt"...
You either make it a battle taxi, a light fighting vehicle or an AT vehicle. You ain't gonna get a good vehicle by forcing all the comprises necessary onto the design or it's operational doctrine by trying to make one vehicle do all three things.

I have no particular issue with IFVs, a battle taxi with some firepower to discourage the predators and/or fire in support of the infantry. But yeah, when you let the crew start thinking they can take on tanks...
To my way of thinking, putting TOWs on the Bradley went against the tried & true combined arms doctrine - everything supports everything else, we've seen plenty of examples of armour in the Middle East or Chechnya taken out by infantry because the crew decided to go it alone.
You don't need someone in a battle taxi taking on tanks when you already have ATGW teams, ATGW vehicles, arty, CAS and oh yeah, your own tanks, to do that for you.

But back to the original topic, while I always had a strong preference for the Marder over the Bradley or Warrior, it's still sad to see the Bradley at the end of its life (I felt the same way seeing all those Marders sent to the scrap yard). I'm also one of the crowd who loves that front cover image from Challenge #35 because it represented Twilight so well - the mix of nationalities, the scavenging for food, the Bradley looking like it needs some more attention to maintenance, the extra storage racks added to the sideskirts and what looks suspiciously like an esky/cooler on the rear hull.

[copeab]

What is needed is a vehicle capable of carrying a full squad with a low velocity, big bore HE weapon with high elevation. This choice of weapon will be soft on recoil and can destroy bunkers, something the infantry are crying out for. I think 120mm breech-loaded mortars would be most useful. It should have slat armour from the outset to defeat RPGs and the slat armour should conform to the hull and not drag along outside it. It should also have a CROWS III with javelin capability and the M2 HB machinegun.

The closest to this that I know of is the BMP-3 with a 100mm main gun. However, it shares most of the faults of the BMP series, so isn't a big impr.

The Kangaroo-type conversions of older tanks might work, but cramming a rifle squad in under NBC protection will be tough.

[Olefin]

If used properly the Bradley was a good tank killer - i.e. its not made to be used in a stand up toe to toe fight - its an ambush killer with tanks - i.e. the hey they cant see us yet nail them with the TOW and then get the heck out of here kind of tank killer

thats how we used it when we had them in the game - nailed a Russian tank in a small convoy from long distance with the TOW and then went to town with the 25mm on what was left - but there is no way in heck we would have had a chance in heck if the range had been short enough that they spotted us first and engaged first with the main gun

and considering in the game you really arent looking for a fight you are more looking to get away and run and avoid a lot of fights its a great vehicle for that - and if the opposition doesnt have anti-tank weapons its actually pretty damn good - unless you run into someone with one of the monster Russian MG's

[kato13]

While not 100% accurate this is a funny interpretation of how it evolved.

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=aXQ2lO3ieBA

[rcaf_777]

About time it's getting a little long in the tooth even with the upgrade models

what about its variants like M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System, the M4 C2V battlefield command post, and the M6 Bradley Linebacker air defense vehicle

[copeab]

I'm like the rest of you in that the trend to stick ATGWs on IFVs struck me as trying to make one vehicle do all things.

Putting ATGM launchers on the outside turret of some AMX-13's made a bit of sense, but not Bradleys.

I have no particular issue with IFVs, a battle taxi with some firepower to discourage the predators and/or fire in support of the infantry. But yeah, when you let the crew start thinking they can take on tanks...

The best range for a TOW is considerably farther away from the battleline than the range of the Bradley's other weapons, or the distance at which you'd want the troops to dismount and move forward on foot.

But back to the original topic, while I always had a strong preference for the Marder over the Bradley or Warrior,

I agree with you on the Marder, although I would prefer an automatic grenade launcher over an autocannon. You do lose ammo capacity, but it is much more effective vs infantry and useful vs light vehicles.