braindead

I´ve heard a lot about Bradley IFV that it´s overweight and too expensive, but is it really that bad? Found this CV-90 video in youtube.com, of course it´s Haegglunds promo video , but I thought that US weaponry has been tested in every climate (Alaska for example)

braindead

forgot the link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0

Wraith601

The CV90 was designed for artic climates, the Bradley was built to fight in a Central/Western European theater.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

braindead

yes , but still - I live in Estonia and some 2 feet of snow is a sign of decent winter , and this is not even scandinavia .

avon1944

The Bradley IFV is designed to fight anywhere US land forces will face combat. It that is hot desert or cold climates, so be it.
Dispite all the criticism the Bradley was one of the real stars on the battlefield in PGW#1. It reminds me of the F-117. On Jan. 15, 1991 the F-117 was a great example of wastefull US military spending. A few days later the USAF had developed a brilliant technical aircraft from the USAF.

It kept up with the M-1's, the armor did not have to slow down in order for infantry support.
Protected the troops, one M-2 got to aggressive moved to far forward in an armor battle and was hit by a 100mm shell from a T-54 and, it protected its occupants from fatal injuries. That degree of engineering doesn't come cheap, the main complaint against the M-2.
Punched out T-54/55's (side armor) at 1,200 meters with its 25mm cannon!

The M-2 did everything asked of it and did it well. Most all of the M-2's critics were silent after PGW#1.

Adrian

braindead

ok let me re-phrase the original post . How GOOD is really Bradleys mobility on difficult terrain ? It sure has decent protection as proved in OIF and saves the crew , firepower is also quite good - can´t argue with that. It´s just the mobility... Are almost all todays weapon systems getting too heavy? For example Abrams tank - ´´the best tank on battlefield, in case it gets there´´ (US tank btl. CO at Bosnia, where it had to stay only on main roads, which could carry it) , british chall.2 - even heavier , german pzh-2000 SPH - also around 55t. And when terrain is not too good either then what?

FSV

On difficult terrain the Bradley’s mobility is actually very good. Actually a vehicle’s cross-country mobility depends a great deal on the crew’s training & skill. Crew’s have to develop the ability to “read” the terrain....picking a path that will support the vehicle. I know it sounds corny...but like in Star Wars...the crew has to become ‘one with the vehicle’. Unfortunately, this training cannot be done in a simulator. I use to take my Marines on ‘Bad’ terrain driving jaunts. Other Plt Sgt’s did the same. Senior Officers and Army personnel were often shocked at finding out where we could take tanks.

As for the Bosnia comment....the restrictions were placed on the armor to prevent/reduce the damage to the secondary roads & trails. If you don’t worry about the damage, you can go almost anywhere.

Eventually, with any vehicle (regardless of its weight) you’ll hit soil that is to ‘soft’ to support it, or snow that is to ‘soft’ / deep.

R/S Jake