Jump to content

M2 Bradley series


Scrapper_511

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

"The Pentagon Wars" are a very entertaining movie, and while I concede that many episodes are factually true, there certainly was a generous application of a satirical slant. The Major's boss certainly is depicted as a sinister conspirator, yet many of his arguments in the senate hearing were actually quite true. The only point undermining his stance against a destructive full system test was that the previous tests were rigged - a central point, yes, but it remains unclear whether he was actually responsible for these shenanigans.

Likewise his buddy generals are depicted as incompetent buffoons shifting the development goalposts, yet the addition of the TOW missile launcher (described in the movie as yet another folly) was probably the single most important and beneficial design decision made in the entire program.

If the entire program was such an abysmal failure, how comes that the Bradley turned out to be a reasonably good piece of kit that survived countless RPG attacks in Iraq with rather moderate loss numbers? That it even prevailed against MBTs during Desert Storm?

The original design was lean and low cost, admittedly, but it was essentially just like the previous M113s except bigger, faster, and about as undergunned. Its combat value as a force multiplier would have been no match to the final design.

"The Pentagon Wars" is an entertaining and funny movie, but it tells the story in a very one-sided way. Which isn't a problem for the movie as such. It's just even less useful as a source as the History Channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is to a real historian's work what SB Pro is to driving a real tank."

so you think that little of SB.?:eek2:I never have driven a MBT,the closest i came to it was using some old Shermans for target practice,lol. TV is cheese,SB is useful...and fun.:biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Pentagon Wars" are a very entertaining movie, and while I concede that many episodes are factually true, there certainly was a generous application of a satirical slant. The Major's boss certainly is depicted as a sinister conspirator, yet many of his arguments in the senate hearing were actually quite true. The only point undermining his stance against a destructive full system test was that the previous tests were rigged - a central point, yes, but it remains unclear whether he was actually responsible for these shenanigans.

Likewise his buddy generals are depicted as incompetent buffoons shifting the development goalposts, yet the addition of the TOW missile launcher (described in the movie as yet another folly) was probably the single most important and beneficial design decision made in the entire program.

If the entire program was such an abysmal failure, how comes that the Bradley turned out to be a reasonably good piece of kit that survived countless RPG attacks in Iraq with rather moderate loss numbers? That it even prevailed against MBTs during Desert Storm?

The original design was lean and low cost, admittedly, but it was essentially just like the previous M113s except bigger, faster, and about as undergunned. Its combat value as a force multiplier would have been no match to the final design.

"The Pentagon Wars" is an entertaining and funny movie, but it tells the story in a very one-sided way. Which isn't a problem for the movie as such. It's just even less useful as a source as the History Channel.

The Bradley of today is a far cry from the Bradley of the eighties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yet they are all based on the same hull, engine, turret, weaponry. Okay, so they added more armor, which is par for the course. The Marder was uparmored several times from its inception date, so was the CV90, the M113, ...

I don't want to defend all of the Bradley boondoggle. I'm just saying that the movie suggests that it was a steaming pile of dung after 14 billion dollar for R&D in almost two decades of development time, and that doesn't match the operational experience. That's a textbook case of a cognitive dissonance. So, yeah, the Bradley was improved over time, but it's not outlandish to assume that a fair bit or artistic license was used to make the movie entertaining and fun to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is to a real historian's work what SB Pro is to driving a real tank.

Real history doesn't sell. Furthermore, for me, there is little assurance that "real" history != fiction (or least isn't recorded without artistic license). One-sided accounts often seep into reality until all we have left is the one-sided account.

I remain unconvinced that the history we are taught, much less the alternative histories that I may avail myself of in books (etc.), are little more than maps of the historical territory.

I mean, how will I know that all truckers weren't "Ice Road Truckers" in the future? Or, that all tech wasn't "Star Wars Tech?" The History Channel stands to be a candidate harbinger for future history seekers perhaps as much as anything.

Heck, look at how much PORN existed in the writings, artifacts, and drawings from old cultures. Look at how I had to get past all of my state-sponsored/condoned education before such wonders (and confirmations) of the human condition came into full focus.

They'll find out, in the future, that we are just as vacuous as any other regiment of earth-dwellers; we just have cooler toys and gadgets. Thus, I propose that the History Channel, such as it is, deserves a spot at the dinner table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It wasn't THAT much of an inefficiency as the original M1 Tank Platoon manual made it to look like. What the writers (and "the West" as a whole) didn't fully understand at the time of its writing was that despite Socialism and all, there were COMPETING manufacturers in the Soviet Union with similar design goals but different solutions for different purposes.

The T-55 was made for 3rd world client states and second line units of WP client states.

The T-62 was a short-term solution to bridge a technological gap until a more modern solution would reach full scale production.

The T-64 was full of new gadgets and concepts and hence had the biggest teething problems as a technology testbed. However, both T-72 and T-80 profited immensely from it. Both T-64 and T-80 were intended for first line Soviet units only, and never to be given to client states.

The T-72 was supposed to be a T-64 derivative tailored to reduce production costs and to be given to first rate 3rd world clients as well as first line units of WP client states. It fulfilled that role very well.

Keeping the T-64 in production next to the T-80 simply was a result of industrial politics, to maintain two competing "companies" for better overall results. The T-64 couldn't be given up for T-72 exclusive production as the T-72 wasn't quite as capable as the T-64. To that extent it actually made sense to have both production lines running parallel to each other.

Now, five MBT models in four decades, for a nation the size of a continent. Compare that with the plethora of tank models in European production during the same period. Leo 1 and AMX-30, Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, Leopard 2, add to that M47, M48, M60 and M1 if you will. That's twice as many tank models in the same period.

Now, which solution was more efficient?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...