Those of you old enough to remember may recall the leftist media attacked the Bradley with fury during the 80's, especially "60 Minutes."

They claimed it was too expensive and lacked armor to protect the troops and also lacked firepower. They said it was an unnecessary, expensive system.

At the time, I got the feeling it was a typical "60 Minutes" hit piece going after anything military. The Democrats controlled Congress at that time too.

Anyway, it's been 25 years since those hit pieces of the mid-1980's, and how has it all panned out?

Did it perform as expected or does it suck?

Wasn't a movie made about the development of the vehicle? I seem to remember it being kind of funny.

I don't remember. I do remember the MSM attacked it with fury.

The movie was "The Pentagon Wars" with Kelsey Grammer.

Ya,..... Seen them in action & seen them taken out of action. OIF and OEF with the use of IED's is not what it is ment to stand up to..... then again when you have 5 to 10 155's going off next to anything nothing is really going to fair well.

Sorry due to it still being widely used not going to say what it's down falls were/are.


But the 25mm Bushmaster Rocks & clear out those stupid building in a hurry!!!!

I didn't expect details, just overall performance.

I thought armored vehicles like the Bradley (and M1) had to be hit directly to be put out of action? Well, at least the M1. You're saying a 155mm shell exploding near a Bradley can screw it up?

I remember reports of Bradley's taking out T-72s (Iraqi versions, but still). The 25mm doesn't mess around!

Through the end of the Cold War I think it compared rather well with it's contemporaries (the BMP 1/2, AMX-10, Warrior, Marder, etc).  In actual force on force combat in 1991 and 2003 and beyond, the Bradley has performed very well.  The TOW missile is capable of killing pretty much any tank out there, and the 25mm cannon (especially with the newer DU ammo) has been able to take out older T-55 tanks, which is punching WAY above it's weight so to speak.  Over the years it has been given improved fire control and a lot of add-on armor.  It has handled the RPG threat rather well in Iraq from what I understand.



Compared to other vehicles in it's class today, even upgraded, the Brad is getting rather long in the tooth.  This is to be expected as many of these other vehicles were developed 10-20 years later and with newer technology.  The BMP-3 is much more heavily armed with a 30mm cannon and a 100mm gun, and it has 'uparmor' packages that are supposed to protect it to 30mm rounds.  The CV-90 series, while less well armored, is far more mobile and has a number of other technologies.  Only one variant, the CV-9025, uses the 25mm cannon of the Bradley, and I don't believe it was actually adopted.  All the other CV-90 series use 30mm, 35mm, or 40mm cannon (with some really neat fusing options available with the bigger rounds).  The USMC's EFV (assuming Gates/0bama don't kill it) is planned to use a 30mm.  There are advantages and disadvantages to the various cannon armament, but with infantry vehicles being more heavily armored as time goes on, the 25mm in the Bradley is becoming rather marginal for armored combat against the most current (and into the future) threat vehicles.  The upside is that being armed with a 25mm cannon, being smaller and lighter than the bigger rounds, allows for a huge ammo load.  The downside is that you might need more rounds per target to get the job done.  Right now the 25mm may be adequate, but it will need to be replaced soon.



Another advantage of the Bradley, that a lot of (even most) other IFV's in it's class lack, is the ability to fire anti-tank missiles.  This allows for a respectable capability against tanks and hardened bunkers and would give our infantry an advantage over other IFV's in armored combat if tanks were to be encountered.





As for the 'Pentagon Wars', I'm not sure just how badly they blew things out of proportion, but the Bradley has turned out pretty well for us. Either they were FOS, or the many faults shown in the movie were corrected prior to full production.
-K

I think the Brad is like the Raptor... the final weapon system turned out marvelously in spite of the cockamamy idiocy that sometimes went on during development.

After I got out of the service in 87 my room mate stayed in and became a Bradley Commander during Desert Storm. After the war he called me up and told me that the vehicle performed better than expected (to him). Being that I was a driver and gunner I asked him questions about over heating and dust and he told me that he didn't have any problems to really talk about.



He also said the 25mm rocked and he had a t-72 and several BMPs to his record.

I spent a year in Iraq in a mechanized Infantry unit with lots of BFV's.  While ridding in them on 4 different occasions when they were it by an IED of some sort. The first one was a few daisy chained 120mm's buried pretty shallow in the dirt and we took a direct hit under the right track and it blew off 2 road wheels, broke/split the track on the right side, and blew of 3 side skirt armor pannels. It was my first IED experiance and at first I thought the driver went off a concrete "T" barrier. It felt like we got dropped 4-5 feet onto concrete, and the whole hull filled with dust.  Out of the 3 man crew and the 4 dissmounts in the back, nothing more serious than light headedness. The Bradley had to be loaded onto a wrecker and carried back to the FOB, but no casualties besides the victor.

Second IED was a shaped charge, and it went off toward the front of the Bradley and it punched about a 2" hole through the right side of the hull up at an angle and out the engine compartment hood. The gunner had his head out of the hatch and a piece of shrapnel hit his NODs and cut his cheek/forehead.

Smaller IED's did almost nothing, just a thud/bang and some dust and scratched paint.

No direct hits with RPG's, but some that impacted 10ft away or so and no damage done.

The 25mm puts pretty good sized holes through mud/rock walls, and I heard that the depleted Uranium AP rounds went thorugh both sides of the Iraqi tanks and APC's

The thermal sights were very nice and helped me feel pretty secure out on desert night OP's.

Maintenance sucked big time, changing track ofthen, throwing track in soft sand often, Bradleys breaking down and having to tow each other. I did not enjoy working on them and fixing them, but the Armor was nice and the weapons systems/sights were a big plus.

You are right.  Sometime even an old blind hog will find an acorn.

It was suppose to be a simple replacement for M-113 troop carrier but evolved in a light infantry/scout vehicle that  was effective against the enemy in the wars that we fought using it.  How it would have worked out against Soviet armor in Europe is another story.  

The 25mm is still my favorite weapon to shoot.  Literally a giant machine gun.



That said, mech engineering classes at West Point watch Pentagon Wars to see how not to develop a product.



 

Seems to me that it's worked out well, despite the fact that it wasn't really designed to be mine resistant like the MRAPs.  If you put it up against soviet armored forces there's no reason to expect it would do well going toe to toe with tanks, but vs other APC's in use at the time it would kick ass - isn't that what it was really meant to do?  Infantry support?

The fact that they were able to take out some Iraqi tanks is icing on the cake and is a huge validation of the overall concept and design.

The same crap happened with the apache - it was supposed to be a bloated design by committee but still kicked ass in the end.

OPSEC

Smells of Rebal Gray

It's being replaced by the Ground Combat Vehicle program (GCV) - that is how well it has performed. Meanwhile, the B-52 is still in-service with no replacements in sight.

agreed! I loved being a gunner.

The Bradley performed very well.  Was it unbeatable? No, nothing is.

Like any tracked vehicle it needed a lot of maintenance, especially running on pavement in the hot ass Baghdad heat.

Hmmm.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs

It doesn't compare to the Abrams in armor and firepower.

I think that's a statement that sums up most military equipment arguements.  Simply compare apples to oranges and the 60 minutes crowd will always be right.  

I've worked in DoD weapons systems acquisition for years.  I teach some of the lessons learned.  That movie was pretty much spot on...and hilarious!



 

Holy ancient non enhanced gun bat man.

You'd like the Enhanced Gun and the new FCS; The CIV is also very nice.

919 for the win..........

The only upgrade I see the Bradley needing (I currently use the M3A3) is switching to the Javelin; The ability to Shoot and Scoot on missiles would be nice.

Im sure that will be news to the Bradley Master Gunner school at Ft.Benning, since the Bradley program is funded through 2025 .........

WHOA !!!   no more of this !!!!!  Your bringing back memories !!!!    I still dont wear jewelery,,still have my fingers and I twitch funny anytime some one says Bust Track...........ugh..
 <––––––––––––  11M      "96-98"  

LOL!



I'm sure I would, I've love to try it but I'm too old now LOL



I worked on the A0 from 1984 to 1987

Bradley bite is a bitch.  I remember getting pinned against the back of the turret the first time I tried to take out the receiver because I forgot to take off the Barrel first.  Attaching feed chutes still give me nightmares.  



 

Do you think it would be that difficult? Javelin is designed to be compact and man-portable.

 

The Bradely's biggest problem was that it was designed by committee.  Everybody wanted a piece of the pie in their district, so it had to have an extra piece of equipment on it.  

I recall one of the objections raised was that the rear troop compartment door was made from aluminum and would burn if hit with WP, filling the compartment inside with deadly fumes killing the passengers & crew.  It was a good story, but I have heard nothing of it actually happening in OIF, DS.

Stryker was victim to some of the same and the objections raised are still valid, but the vehicle performs in ways unexpected that validate the adoption of the platform (even if the MGS is still unremarkable).

unloading is also a bitch, I still have scars on my hands.

Looks like you would need a total turret redesign for that weapon system.  



http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm
 

The Javelin should not be hard to do, a new launcher and new MCS, but not difficult. The Javelin does however have a shorter range then the TOW2B. Extend the range of the Javelin perhaps?

That 40mm CTWS looks way to big to fit into an existing turret.

i never saw a bradley perform but ive seen lots of blown up cars and shot up building along roadsides in iraq

Given that the man-portability requirement no longer exists that sounds possible.

 

I just remember 60 Minutes going on and on about how it was designed to float but sucked at it....even though almost nothing else in the inventory had that capability.

You have to remember the press is the business to expose the wrongs of the day.  It wasn't as bad as they made it out to be, but it was far from perfect.

This seems to indicate that the CTWS was installed in a Bradley turret http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/7961leslie.pdf



The ammunition capacity is pathetically low, though. 42-70 rounds for the three example turrets. When shooting 3-5 round bursts that will go by very quickly.





 

To fit that it looks like it lost the coax. Also wonder what the turret is like.

What is interesting is talking to the old timers that think the compromises that created the Bradley created flawed doctrine.

Some old Soldiers would like to go back to the idea of a battle taxi...

Not my area, so I don't know...

Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick two.



The movie makes the Bradly out to be like the Space Shuttle or the F-111.  I.E. Try to do everything for everybody and end up doing nothing well for anyone.



 

What's interesting about the F-111 is that it was designed from the outset to be a fighter and strike aircraft for the Navy and USAF, and it failed in one of those roles (naval fighter).

 

in the three years I worked with them I've only seen one accident. It was while swimming, (the big topic of the 1980's 60 minutes program). The trim vane caved in just as the vehicle entered the water. The Driver was fast on his feet and gunned it into reverse and saved himself and the vehicle.



Outside of swimming, we worked the Bradley hard in training. Never had a engine problem or any other weapon related problem. The three weeks we had them in the Mojave desert killed all the rubber on the tracks and road wheels. I banged out the air filters twice daily and never had a problem. The M1s at the time were always having air intake problems which was later fixed.



I would love to drive one of the newer Bradleys or pull the trigger one more time...

The ODS SA and above are sweet as hell...................................

Should we let him in on the fact a proper boresighted and colimated A3 does not need to fire a sensing round? Or how you have the BC target designate for the gunner via the CIV?

Ya having used the ODS and the A3 now I am in love. I actually enjoy the heck out of gunney; look forward to it really.

LOL I follow what you mean 100%



"Gunner, sabot, BMP, Battlesight..." "Identified...", "Fire!" <boom> "Target!" <boom boom boom> <boom boom boom boom> Cease fire, target destroyed!



LOL! I can hear that in my dreams...

Brad's performed exceptionally well, from what I gathered from being over there. Lots and lots of times Brad's got hit by RPGs and IEDs and their crews lived to tell the story.

Oh ya........Those flat screen monitors are like sex..............no seperate nightsight for the driver........

Oh ya, now with a setup gun and IBAS you just lase and fire a 3-4 rd burst on target, done.

The designate; man the BC hits that button and the turret slews and sets you on the target the BC had in the CIV