USA's "Project Cancelled"
- Thread starter Riain
- Start date
The Pentagon Wars is mostly BS and James Burton is a self-aggrandizing, Sparky-tier idiot who didn't realize the fact that the Bradley was designed from the start to kill BMPs.
It leaves out the best part. Some hobgoblin Congresscritter saw the original version and saw tracks and immediately thought "cheap tank" which was actually how the whole Charlie Foxtrot started.
A fellow "Esteemed Member" brought up the BMP-2 (fortunately, otherwise the M2 would have a 105mm gun) and how come the U.S. vehicles couldn't engage a bunch of them in a mini-Kursk with clown cars.
Then another hobgoblin on the same committee noted that it needed more protection, which, simply by coincidence, a major "ironworks" in his District could provide.
...and theand played on.
marathag
Banned
Not the way it was sold though. TOW reloads take up room for passengers, making the M3 different from the M2
But the big problem was retaining the amphibious ability, that lead to the too light armor and being cramped,
and was jettisoned finally with the M2A2, and then it was as heavy as a Sherman Tank, and could carry 6 grunts.
Merkava MBT, can also carry Six at the cost of less main gun ammo, and that is way more survivable to get 6 guys across a battlefield, or pot BMPs
$3.5M USD for the Merkava, vs $3.1M for a Bradley
You kill BMPs and BTRs with autocannons. That's why the HS.30 and Marder I carried 20 mm autocannons instead of HMGs. The Merkava is not capable of fighting while carrying 6 troops, and it's not capable of delivering combat-ready infantry (with equipment and in physical condition ready to fight). The Merkava has only a very small ready rack in the turret basket, and more than 3/4 of the ammunition is carried in the rear compartment. The Bradley wouldn't be able to carry more troops instead of TOWs, because the size of the passenger compartment is limited by the length of the vehicle (length of engine compartment, turret ring, and then seats). The TOWs and stored with fuel and ammunition in the sponsons over the tracks. Taking away the Bradley's TOWs would require giving ITV platoons back to the infantry battalions, which is an extra 50 troops per battalion, and that's a poor match for 100+ ready-to-fire TOWs on the Bradleys.
Riain
Banned
While actual pork barreling is damaging it is naive in the extreme to discount the politics of Defence procurement and label a valid 'Whole of Government' solution as a pork barrel by default. There was one line in the Pentagon Wars clip that was important, along the lines of; if you get the budget for this I won't have the budget for that.
Say what you want about the Bradley, it does have one thing going for it; it exists! That, and any other multi-billion dollar project, could burst at any seam and if it did then the US Army might still be stuck with upgraded Vietnam era M113s the way they are stuck with M109 howitzers and the USMC stuck with AAAV7s from the same era. This is the danger of 'Project Cancelled' or 'programme cut short'.
Say what you want about the Bradley, it does have one thing going for it; it exists! That, and any other multi-billion dollar project, could burst at any seam and if it did then the US Army might still be stuck with upgraded Vietnam era M113s the way they are stuck with M109 howitzers and the USMC stuck with AAAV7s from the same era. This is the danger of 'Project Cancelled' or 'programme cut short'.
Gee take a subsonic airframe that was developed from a great supersonic airframe and make it supersonic! Don't get me wrong the A-7F was a good low risk option. But what does it give you over the already in use F-16 (which due to the end of the Cold War was already having its planned production cut). The other problem was that the airframes were already well into their service life and would have to be 'rebuilt' to get enough service life to make it worthwhile.
Last edited:
And when did the lack of a proper battlefield air defense hurt the U.S. Army since the DIVAD was cancelled? The system was ill conceived from the start. Basing it on a previous generation tank that was not able to keep up with the vehicles it was supposed to protect? I can't think of a single U.S. ground unit that has been attacked by a system the DIVAD was supposed to protect it from.
marathag
Banned
Or with 105mm DU Darts, HESH or HEAT
There is no Kill like Overkill.
An unlike TOW II, the shot flight time is far shorter.
Yes, the 105mm isn't the best against other MBTs anymore, but that's not the job anymore, its opponents are BMPs and BTRs
With the goal of an M2 like IFV. The Brad has Two TOW II, with five Reloads.
Merkava 2 as a IFV has 6-11 main gun rounds.
It also has 30 bomblets for the 60mm mortar, and thousands of 7.62mm for the Coaxia and AAMM, and a M2 Mantlet .50 with 1000, while having jump seat for 6 troopers
So yeah, its got fight while have the guys in back.
And it's immune from anything that any BMP could toss at it, and very resistant to RPGs, IEDs and mines
So what would a Calbear' dream navy look like then if you have the ability to clean house and start with a clean slate?
The A-10 was not designed for CAS ( Close Air Support) . It was designed for Battlefield Interdiction of Armor Formations in the European Environment. It was also seen as very useful to support CSAR (Combat Search and Recovery) as close support for the rescue helicopters (The only thing in the inventory slower than it is) The problem with using it outside the European environment is its lack of speed. If it is working from large rear area air bases (like in Iraq and Afghanistan) it takes too long for it to get to anywhere it is needed. With a lack of an active Air Defense by the opposition systems such as the AC-130 and B-52s with smart munitions and very long loiter times work well for preplanned operations and systems like F-16s and F-15s that have the speed to get to a remote situation in time to make a difference not an A-10 that has to plod its way there.
Yes. If you notice the later systems were based on heavy MBT chassis, not light APC chassis.
Well almost everyone should agree about that. But the Sgt York was cancelled before the 'end of the Cold War'. There was early work being started on a new solution that got shutdown before it ever really got started because with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact there was no apparent need for it (which has played out).
No because it is designed to loiter over the battlefield for hours providing sensors and intellegence the entire time and able to bring in precise overwhelming firepower when needed.
Riain
Banned
No US unit suffered attack that the Sgt York was designed for, in fact IIUC no US ground unit has suffered air attack since 1945, but I think some US allies may have been under the sort of air attack that the Sgt York could have assisted with or countered. I think in 1973 the Israeli VADS and Chaparral units might have seen action, and maybe again in 1982. The British suffered air attacks in the Falklands which the Rapier SAMs struggled with. I would have to say that the niche the Sgt York was designed to fill, possibly alongside US Roland, hasn't been properly covered since the VADS-Chaparral combo became obsolescent in maybe the 70s and the US has been partly lucky that it hasn't seen this threat materialise.
Conversely while the US has been able to suppress SAMs for decades, mobile AA guns are such a problems that the USAF flies high to avoid most of it.
Conversely while the US has been able to suppress SAMs for decades, mobile AA guns are such a problems that the USAF flies high to avoid most of it.
I'm curious in the later part of the Cold war did the US have any land based short range air defense missiles other than Redeyes and subsequently Stingers, the Chaparral systems, and the handful of Rolands that were actually acquired ?
I am curious about what the USAF might have used to defend their air bases in Europe during the cold war.
Edit to add:
I realize the US had Nike, Hawk and Patriot long range SAMs and of course the USAF, USN, USMC also had various air defense capabilities as well
Last edited: