No more M2 Bradleys

[CDAT]

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

I do not think that anyone is saying that it can not take out a tank, at least for me it is more after talking with some of the crews of them and some of the information that they gave me I think that the ATGM on the IFV is a mistake. For example things not really found in the game, talking with several crews they told me that the maximum engagement range for the TOW from the vehicle is 3750 meters, and that it takes between 40 and 50 seconds to fly that far. Now I have never been a Bradley crew either as an 11M or 19D, but that just sound like a bad option to me. Looking at it from my time in tanks where our maximum engagement range was 4000 meters, or 250 meters further, and our flight time from fire to hit was at most a second or maybe two for the HEAT round. I was also told that there is a very noticeable plum when it is fired, so assuming that the tank crew you are shooting at is at least halfway competent and you are shooting at let say half range. this gives the tank crew 20-25 seconds before the missile hits enough time to get off three to five rounds at the Bradley, and they do not need to hit just make the gunner twitch so that the missile nose dives. It may also be possible in addition or in place of shooting to pop smoke and hide so they can not hit what they can not see.

Now my understanding is that some of these were fixed in later versions of the TOW, but not sure. Still to me if it is a dismount who is doing the firing the vehicle is not exposed at all, the range is likely to be much closer, but it is easier for the dismount to get closer. By being closer it also reduces the flight time even is the speed is the same.

[CDAT]

Well looking up stats for it on Wikipedia so take it for what it is worth, early on max range was 3000 meters, updated ones 3750 meters. It also says that it takes 20 seconds to get to max range, now it does not say for what max range but does talk about making it faster so maybe both Either way it is faster than I was lead to believe, but it also talks about how the actual penetration was less than expected from testing Original supposed to 600mm actual 430mm, improved 7-800mm actual 630mm.

This does not really change my opinion above, but thought should share the updated information that I found for clarity.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Interesting fact: gen 1 TOW had the same penetration as the Shillelagh ATGM.

[Legbreaker]

On the plus side, ANY vehicle that exposes itself is dead generally, and the Bradley is certainly no exception. Firing the TOW should absolutely be done from a hull down position, and of the equipment allowed (which in this case I don't think it does) a turret down position.
the Bradley turret is relatively small and does make for a significantly difficult target at longer ranges, particular while under fire from not just one missile, but likely two or more simultaneously (it's SOP with most armies to always fire missiles/rockets/recoilless rifles in pairs from two positions).
Also, as has been mentioned, the Bradley should not try to go toe to toe with another AFV - it WILL loose. It has to work as part of a team with other vehicles or infantry providing a distraction to the target. Infantry for example could use small arms and machineguns to force the tank to button up thereby making it much more difficult for them to detect the incoming missile(s).
Used correctly it's my belief the Bradley was suitable for the task. It's those who look at it's heavy armour (compared to contemporary APCs and IFVs), and TOW launcher, and try to use it outside it's intended role that have given it the bad reputation. As a battle taxi with good defensive/ambush firepower it's real failing in my opinion was the reduced troop capacity. Other than that.....

[Vespers War]

It's also been getting harder to maintain the Bradleys as parts go obsolete. The gunner's sight for the TOW uses some incredibly old-tech wafers for the IR sensor that AFAIK only one company still has dies for (I used to be the buyer for the wafers for a company that made the launcher electronics and some other systems). We actually had a Bradley that the government permanently loaned us in order to test any changes that we wanted to make to the stuff we made.

I think the inclusion of the TOW launcher stemmed from a Cold-War-Goes-Hot-In-Europe mentality. NATO wouldn't have as many tanks as the Pact, but cramming anti-tank weapons onto everything gave lighter units a chance to ambush and knock out heavier vehicles. It was the equivalent of cramming a 75mm gun onto the M24 Chaffee (with its maximum of 38mm of armor) - you hope you don't run into anything that needs that kind of firepower, but you carry it along because it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

On the plus side, ANY vehicle that exposes itself is dead generally, and the Bradley is certainly no exception. Firing the TOW should absolutely be done from a hull down position, and if the equipment allowed (which in this case I don't think it does) a turret down position.

No, you're correct, it can't really be fired from a turret down position. The TOW is a SACLOS-guided missile that steers towards the gunner's crosshairs based on a thermal sight spotting a flare at the tail end of the missile. The Integrated Sight Unit is at the top of the turret, but it needs to pick up the missile quickly or else the missile will self-destruct to avoid unguided flight. If the system was being redesigned now, I expect the TOW would be replaced by the Javelin, to give fire-and-forget capability to the anti-tank weapon.

Well looking up stats for it on Wikipedia so take it for what it is worth, early on max range was 3000 meters, updated ones 3750 meters. It also says that it takes 20 seconds to get to max range, now it does not say for what max range but does talk about making it faster so maybe both Either way it is faster than I was lead to believe, but it also talks about how the actual penetration was less than expected from testing Original supposed to 600mm actual 430mm, improved 7-800mm actual 630mm.

The BGM-71D and -71E (TOW-2 and TOW-2A) are ~20 seconds to 3750 meters. The BGM-71F (TOW-2B) is ~21 seconds to the same range because it flies a different angle to get a top-attack profile. I don't know about the older versions.

[ChalkLine]

Interesting fact: gen 1 TOW had the same penetration as the Shillelagh ATGM.

Same warhead. The Gen one was chosen as 152mm for that reason.

Shillelagh was the most destructive missile in US stocks until Hellfire was introduced

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And speaking of the Shillelagh...
Interesting fact #2
The Australian Army acquired one or two examples (depending on what source you read) of the M551 Sheridan (as well as one example of the M114) for testing as a possible recce vehicle. If the Sheridan had proved successful we would have apparently been getting the missile as well.
That would have made Australia the only other nation to operate the vehicle.
However it proved unsuitable for some of the Australian requirement (as did the M114).

[ChalkLine]

And speaking of the Shillelagh...
Interesting fact #2
The Australian Army acquired one or two examples (depending on what source you read) of the M551 Sheridan (as well as one example of the M114) for testing as a possible recce vehicle. If the Sheridan had proved successful we would have apparently been getting the missile as well.
That would have made Australia the only other nation to operate the vehicle.
However it proved unsuitable for some of the Australian requirement (as did the M114).

The whole gun wasn't a mature technology. Combustible cartridge cases were new and the interrupted-screw breech was a harking back to earlier designs because of the pressures involved in firing a big bore weapon weren't explored. The hi-lo system would have been a far better solution that would have allowed for a sliding breech.
The combustible cartridges required a high-efficiency bore evacuator that made the cyclical rate way too low or the weapon would blow burning cartridge fragments back into the turret and onto the other combustible cases. Also the ammunition cases were not stable in high humidity environments which was where the US was doing most of its fighting at the time.
What is telling about the M551 was that it was never allowed to mature due to blatant hostility of the 'Tiger Terror' generation of tank commanders who saw it as too-light-to-fight. They wanted a Tiger of their own and all else was a bad idea, even though the Germans themselves had realised their Panthers and Tigers were too heavy and were looking at something like a modernised Panzer IV. In fact the Germans were enthusiastic users of Shermans when the captured them. They had learned the lessons the Russians taught them; 'you can't rely on armour as there's always a bigger gun'.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The stability of the caseless ammo was a major factor in the decision not to buy the Sheridan. I think there was also mention that there were serious concerns about the actual safety of the rounds.

[pmulcahy11b]

I would argue that the same combination of weapons, light armor, decent speed, and small dismount crew may not make it a good IFV -- but it does make it a good scout vehicle.

[unkated]

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

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

That was fun. I was impressed with the talent they got to work on this 10-minute short.

[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]

Not Dead Yet

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/product/armored-multipurpose-vehicle-ampv

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.