[Voice in your head]

I think the Bradleys should remain until there are sufficient Up-Armored HMMWVs. No IED is going to kill soldiers in a Bradley, unless it is well-placed and well-timed. RPGs won't do anything to a Bradley, unless they score a direct shot into an open hatch. Also, the Coax is more accurate than a soldier firing an M240B, so there is less chance of civilian casualties, in the event that Haji is stupid enough to screw with the Bradley.

3rd ID turned in its Bradleys and M113s in early June and patrolled in soft-skinned HMMWVs until late August. Made no sense, from a tactical standpoint. I would be curious to know how many soldiers have been killed while riding in Bradleys or M113s and how many have been killed riding in HMMWVs.

And something else that I never hear about - 1st Armored Division and 3rd ID were both in Baghdad from early June thru late August. Why did so many more 1st AD soldiers die in that time. What did 3rd ID do that 1st AD didn't do?

[HiJinx]

Radix, old friend, do you have an answer to the last question?

[blanknoone]

The Bradleys will definitely stay...but they are not good patrol vehicles. Tracked vehicles are hell on roads, and very expensive to operate and maintain, especially when driven a lot. That is why there is a need for a different vehicle, specifically something with wheels and armor.

[lepton]

3rd ID turned in its Bradleys and M113s in early June and patrolled in soft-skinned HMMWVs until late August. Made no sense, from a tactical standpoint. I would be curious to know how many soldiers have been killed while riding in Bradleys or M113s and how many have been killed riding in HMMWVs.

It makes a lot of sense from a tactical point of view: Greatly increased vision, greatly decreased visibility, and fewer turtles.