[DesertRhino]

Very strong point about the sore loser concept. Looking back the Bradley did very well. And who would replace the F-16 with the F-20? I remember the M-1 tank being castigated with deep concerns about it’s turbine engine being unreliable in sand.

[Phlyer]

Looking back the Bradley did very well.

"Looking back" at the reason tanks were invented, the Bradley is a great tank. It can break the stalemate of trench warfare with enough mobility to get past the mud, enough armor to resist man-portable rapid-fire weapons (machine guns) and near-miss artillery shrapnel. It has enough firepower to take out machine gun nests and soldier-built obstacles (log/dirt emplacements).

It's not clear that it's the right solution in the face of enemies widely equipped with RPGs, but it might be when used as part of a combined arms force (as it was designed to be). A Bradley with a dismounted squad should be a lot better bet than nearly any alternative.

And it even has TOWs if it finds the occasional tank.