Gotta say, I am with Gerry on the Bradley fighting vehicle … sort of.

I haven’t seen the movie in question, so I can’t comment on that, but the inception of the M2/M3 Bradley fighting vehicle is truly a deplorable chapter in the history of the US defense industrial complex … and that’s a pretty grim book overall.

So the situation, in general, was this …

The US mechanized force in the late 1970s was the the M60 series battle tank with the M-113 APC.

After a decade long debacle with the West Germans (see the XMBT-70 for that friggin’ train wreck), the US Army finally settles on the M1 Abrams.

Great. Except the Abrams does an easy 45 mph (at least in those days before the tank “got fat”). The M-113 does 30 mph. That was fine in the days of the M60, but now we need a new APC that carries AT LEAST A SQUAD OF INFANTRY (file that little factoid away, my friends …) at 45 mph so the combined arms mechanized force can keep together on the battlefield, part of the AirLand Battle 2000 concept they were rolling out at the time.

Some other procurement / development requirements may have been in there (more firepower and more protection), the M-113 was known to be underprotected in Vietnam especially from beneath, the Army MAY have wanted to replace with old M2HB .50 cal with an autocannon considering the experiments the British were trying with the MCV-80 and the Germans with the Marder, etc.

But that’s really about it. The Army wanted a LIGHT armored vehicle that could deliver a SQUAD+ of troops to the battlefield (M113 could carry 11-12 men in a pinch), with firepower to support them against infantry opponents, and be easy to convert to other battlefield roles – I won’t even TRY to list all the conversions and variants the M-113 has been adopted to. Mortar carrier, air defense vehicle, battlefield ambulance, command vehicles, armored workshops … Seriously, there are dozens more.

Basically, the M-113 was a workhorse / battlebus … everything the Army needed. It was just too old, too slow for the 1980s, and needed a little thicker skin, especially against mines. Oh, and NBC capability in the M-113 was basically zilch, so that needed fixing as well.

So the Defense Contractor comes back with the Bradley.

DEEP BREATH …

At least x2 the Budget … and x4 the cost of an M113.

Initially carried only six passengers (infantry) … MAYBE. Yes, as in HALF the primary mission requirement.

Didn’t the Army need a vehicle that could carry a squad? (two fireteams of four + a squadleader = AT LEAST nine men? Perhaps up to 13 if a third fireteam / weapons team is added)?

The Marine Corps always carries 13 man squads, so the Bradley was always useless to them. To be fair, this was an Army contract and I con’t think the Corps even used the M113.

The point is, this vehicle offered one half the requested mission capability (carrying infantry … IT IS AN APC, AFTER ALL!), at four times the price of the vehicle it was replacing. So one-eighth the platform efficiency.

The Army asked for an APC. They got a half-ass (but double the price) tank destroyer.

Also, forget the adaptability into other variants. I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think the M2/3 Bradley is capable of being adapted to the multitude of other roles that M-113 could.

They DID deliver the autocannon (25mm Bushmaster … again, I’m not SURE if that was part of the requirement specs).
They DID deliver the speed (Bradley did the required 45 mph, at least then).
They DID deliver the NBC protection (such as it was in early 1980s).

But they also included a TOW missile launcher?
I’m sorry, WHAT?
When was that needed? When was that asked for?

They also included a … (get this) motorcycle bolted to the back?

Weapons firing ports you needed to special M-16 variants just to use?

Enhanced *cough* “protection” of advanced armor. Great. Too bad aluminum was initially used in some parts of the frame / outer body (making it, you know … flammable … just what you want in a vehicle who’s sole purpose is to transport and PROTECT the passengers inside).

Then of course, the contractors hired platoons of K-Street lobbyists to lean on the members of Congress, especially Senate Armed Forces Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, etc.

So guess what gets shoved down the US Army’s throat?

NOW … here’s the HAPPY END to this story and where I might slightly disagree with Gerry …

Throughout the 1980s and early 90s, the Army and the Bradley have come to terms. I’m not sure of the details on how the Army resolved the reduced troop capacity issue (smaller squads? Three Bradleys for two squads?) Not an expert on that, my time was in the Corps, not the Army.

I am 95% sure the armor issues has been fixed / retrofitted. The Bradley remains a glass cannon, but to be fair all APCs really are.

The absurd firing ports have been removed to my knowledge.

The motorcycle is gone.

I’m not sure, but I don’t even know if they make the M3 “Cavalry” variant and the M2 “pure” APC anymore.

I think they’ve managed to up the passenger capacity to seven with a later variant.

SO IN CONCLUSION

The Bradley fighting vehicle WAS a terrible vehicle. Once the Army came to terms with what they were given, made changes to their OOB / ToE, and the worst / most useless features were remediated / removed … it’s now a pretty solid platform. Of course infantry will always bitch about their APCs … it’s what infantry do. Now that Bradleys are understood to be “light tank killers” instead of, you know … APCs … they do well in that role. See 73 Easting / Gulf One as an example.

But still, the Army should get what was ordered – Not have to restructure itself around the bloated boondoggle designed not so much around battlefield requirements … as much as put contractors’ kids through college.

The problem is, do infantry really have to fight tanks anymore? With the introduction of the Javelin, can’t infantry engage tanks more effectively from covered positions while dismounted (instead of being incinerated inside a tissue-thin death box). And how many prospective enemies are really using large numbers of tanks right now?

That’s an unfair assessment, I know … judging a 1980 vehicle (1980s … enemy tanks were DEFINITELY still a thing) by 2020s standard / threat assessment.

In all, I think the Bradley is a solid asset for the Army NOW.
It wasn’t when it was first delivered.

The M2 Bradley …

The US Army at its best.
US defense industry at its worst.