ever see Pentagon Wars?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.
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 vee-hull is fine for mine resistance, but when you’re looking for mobility in the soft terrain that vee-hull is a liability.
We are trying to do too many things with one vehicle.
We want a vehicle that can:
1. Serve as a home for an Infantry squad.
2. Transport that squad anywhere cheaply.
3. Protect the squad from artillery and small arms.
4. Be a tank and bunker killer.
5. Serve as a close combat assault carrier.
6. Be hard to see and hit.
7. Can be transported by aircraft like the C-130.
8. Protect from chemical attack.
9. Protect from mine and IED attack.
10. Amphibious.
11. Cheap to manufacture.
12. Easy to repair.
Ideally, we would also like a vehicle that:
1. Can stand up to tank main gun and antitank missile fire.
2. Defend against air attack
Make a cheap assault vehicle.
No driver.
Robotic controlled by wire by Infantry..
Mobile shield.
Only travels short distances.
No weapons.
Protect the Infantry the last 300 yards.
A trailer, once detached, would
be a sitting duck in combat
situations. It will also limit
the towing vehicles’ maneuverability
due to the armor needed to protect
troops inside, making the trailer
very heavy.
Trailers in the military are almost
exclusively used in logistics and
are confined to rear areas, or well
escorted convoys.
Shoot, move, communicate. The three
actions rule for successful combat
missions.
The Bradley:
“One specific design requirement was that it should be as fast as the new M1 Abrams main battle tank so that they could maintain formations while moving.”
The M1 Abrams tank is capable of speeds
of up to 45mph in rough terrain.
I’m pretty sure this is what Strykers are for, so I’m not sure what need is being fulfilled here.
Bradley weighs in at 27 tons, dry.
The M-113 weighed in at 12 tons.
Going to be hard to find ‘something better’ to replace the Bradley....
ever see Pentagon Wars?