[gocard14]

Help me with the value of the Bradley.  I view them as a fairly old design, and not overly armored and thus vulnerable.  So curious for insight into how they could be used (maybe more for rapid movement?).

No expert here, but they seem to provide a good balance of mobility, armor against most threats, and a good amount of firepower, even to the point of handling itself just fine against older Russian MBTs in desert storm. No idea if it’s true, but you read that the Bradley took out more T72s then the Abrams in Iraq. Less armored and less firepower then an Abrams, but lighter, easier to maneuver, and easier to supply and probably maintain as it runs on a diesel engine and not a jet turbine.

All in all, it probably makes more sense then an Abrams given the logistic issues as well as the fact that this hasn’t seemed to be a brobdingnagian tank V tank war.

[gocard14]

Help me with the value of the Bradley.  I view them as a fairly old design, and not overly armored and thus vulnerable.  So curious for insight into how they could be used (maybe more for rapid movement?).

No expert here, but they seem to provide a good balance of mobility, armor against most threats, and a good amount of firepower, even to the point of handling itself just fine against older Russian MBTs in desert storm. No idea if it’s true, but you read that the Bradley took out more T72s then the Abrams in Iraq. Less armored and less firepower then an Abrams, but lighter, easier to maneuver, and easier to supply and probably maintain as it runs on a diesel engine and not a jet turbine.

All in all, it probably makes more sense then an Abrams given the logistic issues as well as the fact that this hasn’t seemed to be a brobdingnagian tank V tank war.