Posted on 07/24/2018 7:32:29 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta
The U.S. Army is concentrating its efforts on fielding a new infantry fighting vehicle. The new vehicle will replace the M2 Bradley, first fielded in 1981. The vehicle will incorporate new technologies that the Army has increasingly had to bolt onto the older vehicle, as well as be more lethal and survivable against modern threats.
The M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle was introduced in 1981 as a new type of vehicle, the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Unlike the earlier armored personnel carrier, a lightly armored and lightly armed vehicle which merely dropped off infantry troops at the edge of the battlefield, the infantry fighting vehicle was meant to carry troops into combat. Keeping soldiers onboard preserved a unit’s mobility, making mechanized units more agile and better able to respond to the fast-moving battlefield....
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
It seems like it could be made more roomy, more IED proof, could carry more troops. It wouldn't need weapons offensive weapons, but I guess you could mount anything you wanted.
It would be a lot less expensive than the motorized tank or fighting vehicle, it might could be more heavily armored to protect our men.
I like the idea of still making a replacement for the Bradley, but why not also build armored towable troop trailers? Or, do we already have that?
The Israelis converted old Merkava chassis into “heavy” APCs. Maybe that is the direction we need to examine?
Will it be round and roll or will it have legs and walk
My guess is, if you watch video of a tank running over terrain, then imagine a trailer hooked to it ... the guys up front are going to get thrown all over the place, whereas back over the wheel it’d be fairly smooth sailing.
Infantry troops are supposed to WALK unless mechanized. This riding up and down MSR’s and other roads is why so many are having amputations. The Russians road up and down the same MSR’s/roads in AFGHAN. Their military was defeated using the same tactics being used against us. An Infantry Division might want one Mech BDE out of three. That gives them two leg Infantry Battalions plus an Air Cav unit. That is much wiser. Mech units are not winning in Syria.
"This is the Army’s third try at developing a Bradley replacement. The first effort....ran from 1999 until cancellation in 2008. The Army spent a staggering $18.1 billion without fielding a single vehicle.
Whatever they get, it should have a 20-ft telescoping front wheel rack to run over IED’s ahead of the main chassis.
About time. A 7.62 Nato round would go right through a Bradley.
Tanks are mobile coffins these days. It’s not hard to knock one out. I wouldn’t want to be on a tank crew.
...and that is really what this is all about. Defense Contractor $$$$$$$.
yeah, that 18 billion number is staggering. wth?
Not that I think this is directed related, but the infantry is co-ed now, thanks to Obama (and thanks to Trump and Mattis not reversing it, the one thing I am highly disappointed with). The studies conducted by the services that Mabus and others glibly tossed in the circular file, though, are still entirely valid. Girl infantry are slow, and can’t carry much crap very far at all, and slow down everybody around them. With the army aggressively gender-integrating (101st Airborne and 75Th Ranger Battalion opened to females earlier this year) look for more mechanization, not less.
About time. A 7.62 Nato round would go right through a Bradley.
Maybe if all the hatches are open.
Did you forget the /S?
“the infantry is co-ed now”
Ok with me to give it a try.
Women are in submarines now. Guess why. Because there aren’t enough eligible men volunteering.
What happens if a woman gets her booty felt on the battlefield?
My son is a Bradley Master Gunner.
He had me watch a movie called “The Pentagon Wars” - a dramatization of the development of the Bradley.
I had suspicion that the development/procurement process was a f*cked up mess, but it’s a lot worse than that.
Wouldn’t that make tanks less maneuverable?
Kill a tank, kill the troops? I would think you would want the entire force to be able to scatter across the field. I am no Patton, so I could be wrong.
A good suggestion, or at least one that should be explored. Tanks are difficult to get to the battlefield, can’t be used on some battlefields, expensive in terms of logistics and experience failures every three to ten operating hours. However the idea of an armed tow vehicle that could tow mission specific super-survivable modular vehicles is genius!
a blue on blue unauthorized weapons discharge?
If you don't have enough eligible men, take steps to attract them. Revamp your recruiting media. Don't aggressively integrate women who are in 99% of cases also not eligible (in a sane world.)
When a platoon gets back from 3 weeks on patrol in the back of beyond Afghanistan, instead of stripping in a courtyard and getting hosed off, they have to figure out how to handle the one or two girls in the group. When facilities consist of a piss pipe and a hole in the ground in the corner of a foxhole (per a friend who spent 6 weeks straight in said foxhole with 3 other guys on the edge of a valley in Afghanistan, with insurgent snipers taking potshots all the while) they have to figure out how to take a shit with a girl sitting 2 feet away. When a 210 pound guy gets his leg shot off, better hope 110lb GI Jane doesn't have to carry 3 miles because that's the closest a medivac can land. When you've been getting shot for weeks and all you want to do is talk about those hot girls you saw in the Green Zone, better hope GI Jane isn't there to ruin the fun.
It needlessly complicates simple things and irreversibly damages the masculine warrior culture of combat arms.
I was thinking more along the lines of getting the troops close to the front, then have the ability to press a button to disengage the trailer if the tank needs to quickly maneuver.
It seems like a heavily armored v-hull would be good for protecting troops traveling up and down roads in places like Afghanistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.