I was reading a thread about the Apache helicopter and remembered a movie from a few years back called "The Pentagin Wars".  It's about the development of the Bradley fighting vehicle, and stars Kelsey Grammer as a fictious Maj. General Partridge.  Funny as hell, rent it if you can.  Here's a few quotes:

[b]Chairwoman:[/b] The Paveway bomb proved to be a very effective weapon if the enemy allowed us to build a ten-story crane over their tanks!
[b]Partridge:[/b] Let me be the first to say that the Paveway never missed!
[b]Chairwoman:[/b] It missed by a mean distance of five miles and fifty percent of the time.
[b]Partridge:[/b] You know, in baseball a player that hits .400 is considered to be pretty damned good!
[b]Congressman:[/b] In baseball the losing team isn't killed by the winners.

[b]Partridge:[/b] We've had some spectacular successes!
[b]Congressman:[/b] Such as?
[b]Partridge:[/b] That's classified!

[b]Caspar Weinberger:[/b] They were particulary focused on our new Sergeant York antiaircraft gun. They say that when the Sergeant York failed to hit moving aircraft, we test-fired it at hovering helicopters. When it failed to hit hovering helicopters, we fired it at targets on the ground and it missed those.

After redesigning the Bradley to carry a gun turret...
[b]Col. Smith:[/b] That's a big gun.
[b]Jones:[/b] That's the problem. You go out on the battlefield with this pecker sticking out of your turret, and the enemy's going to unload on you with everything they have.
[b]Col. Smith:[/b] But it's a troop carrier, not a tank.
[b]Jones:[/b] You want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, "I am a troop carrier, not a tank. Please don't shoot me?"

[b]Burton:[/b] So, what we've got is a troop carrier that can't carry troops, a scout vehicle that's too slow, and it cannot engage a tank but carries enough firepower to wipe out half of downtown Washington.

Good movie.

the sad part is most of that is based on a true story...

Don’t you just love government projects?J

Almost all weapons systems have teething problems, since time immemorial.  The Bradley evolved into a good machine, and the Apache does just fine from reports I've heard.

All,

Have M3A2's in my unit.  Did SC3 (Scout Commander's Certification Course) about a dozen years ago.  Here are my thoughts:

The US Army uses the BFV in many roles, with the three prominent roles being:

M2A2 Infantry "Fighting" Vehicle
- the infantry carrier that replaced M113's and M901 Improved TOW Vehicle's in mech units.

M3A2 Cavalry "Fighting" Vehicle
- which replaced both the M113 and M901 ITV  for reconnaissance work

M2A2 Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle
- placed a Stinger crew under armor, getting them as far forward as possible on the battlefield.

Success being a thing of "degrees," rather than a series of "yes's and no's," I'd say that the Bradley has met its objectives.

Despite its failings (it's WAY too tall for recon, and less maneuverable than the M113A3 it beat out for the role), it's still a reliable platform for getting soldiers around on the battlefield.  My experience with M3A2's has shown it to be one of the more reliable tracks in the Army's fleet.  Most - O26 reports (at least those I've seen) reflect this.

The 25mm "Bushmaster" is a pretty good weapon.  Documented proof of getting catastrophic kills on T-55's, T-62's and Yugo M-84's (due to flank and rear shots) was commonplace during and after Desert Storm.  The gun is easy to boresight, and gunnery, while tough, is doable.  Having 2 TOW's as backup for your 25 is also very comforting.

Other variants are out there, or are in the works.  Yes, I'll agree that the Bradley Program was probably NOT the best example of R&D, followed by product development, that the Army has ever done.  I saw "The Pentagon Wars" as well.  And the other postings are correct- most of that story is true.

Still, the current version of the Brad does a fine job overall.