Talk:Bradley Fighting Vehicle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Incorrect Image

The bottom picture, of a destroyed armored vehivle, is an M113, not Bradley. The road wheels are a dead giveaway. This pic should be moved to the M113 page.

Development Problems

Readers who come here looking for background on the events that inspired the book and movie The Pentagon Wars, a specific section on the Bradley's development woes would be helpful.

BMP-2

How could Bradley be designed to trump BMP-2, I mean Bradley's development began in late 70's and BMP-2 entered service around 1980. I think that Bradley was actually US Army's answer to BMP-1, instead of BMP-2.

The Bradley didn't enter service until 1982. The developmental steps (MICV, AIFV, Lynx, etc) are better thought of as designed to match the BMP-1. The BMP-2 is much more of an IFV than the BMP-1, which is still very much an APC. thatguy96 11:58 November 25, 2005
Well, the BMP-1 is a MICV or an IFV, eventhough it is the first of its kind in the World. It is a tracked and armored personnel carrier mounting a cannon instead of a machine-gun, i.e an IFV. The BMP-2, initially known as BMP M1981, was seen for the first time in 1981 when Bradley was just entering service. Do you really think that this had any effect in the design of Bradley, first of which were then factory fresh? It is simply impossible that an IFV is designed to trump an IFV that is not known to exist.

Insurgent Attacks

I saw a picture of a totally wrecked Bradley on Militaryphotos.net, the entire top of the hull including the turret had been sheared off. Are the insurgent’s rpg-7’s and other AT weapons capable of doing this or is it more likely that it had been abandoned and whacked by the Coalition boys afterwards?

I'm pretty sure a couple of RPG-7's or powerful explosives could have done the job but I have to admit, your second option also seems very likely.chubbychicken 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
During Desert Storm, a Bradley from A 1/5 Cav was hit in the turret by something like a 100mm recoilless round. It entered just below the gunner's sight, but did not shear the turret. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
An IED could likely have caused this damage as well (rigged artillery shells and the like have been said to be capable of literally flipping M1A2 tanks over). However, it is equally likely that it could've been completely destroyed in a preventitive coalition action (though I don't know what purpose this would serve). -- Thatguy96 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

the purpose it would serve would be to destroy any recoverable equipment. from the bradley. what is most likely was that it was a mobility kill, and the airforce bombed it to destroy classified equipment. if part of the hull itself was destroyed, with the bottom largely intact, then that's almost definitely what happened. any ied would've destroyed the bottom primarily, and potentially knocking the turret off. an rpg-7 would in no way be capable of that kind of damage, unless it managed to penetrate the ammo storage compartment and the rounds cooked off, but that's very unlikely. i'm just speculating here, but i would imagine the bradley would have the same blow out panels in it's ammo storage that the abrams does, considering it was designed second. i could be wrong. however, if that is the case, it would totally preclude any kind of rpg from doing the damage.Parsecboy 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any blowout panels in the Bradley. 300 rounds of ammo are loaded in the ready boxes in the turret below the gun mechanism. The ready boxes are just sheet steel boxes. Compared to an Abrams, the Bradley turret is pretty tight, so anything that is going to cook a 25mm round is going to be catastophic from the start. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Replacement?

"The Bradley, named after WWII General Omar Bradley, is a replacement for the M113 family of APCs and consists of two types of vehicles, the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle."

I thought the M2 and the M3 were supposed to supplement the M113,not replace it. Dudtz 8/17/06 7:15 PM EST

It replaced it as a real fighting vehicle. The M113 is now primarily used as a command and support vehicle. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.chubbychicken 07:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Real,what do you mean by that? The M113 is an APC,The M2 Bradley is an IFV. Dudtz 8/20/06 12:50 PM EST

The M113 was used as a fighting vehicle until the Bradley displaced it. Specifically, the ACAV version. The US Army had a M113 Assault Course as late as 1990. The statement in the article above needs clarification.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, but does it seem that there is a bias towards the M113, and againstt the implementation of the M2/M3. Why most the bradly be continuosly compared to the M113 in a negative way. The M2 is a replacement and a suprior vehicle. This bias shpuld be corrected. 4/9/2007

It is not just you. The article smells like Sparky's "Gavin" circle jerk group. M113 sucked by the eighties and was a deathtrap on tracks.

BRADLEY NAMING CONVENTIONS

You have stated the following:

1 Production History

The Bradley, named after WWII General Omar Bradley, is a replacement for the M113 family of APCs and consists of two types of vehicles, the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. The M3 CFV was originally going to be named after General Jacob L. Devers, but it was decided the Bradley name would apply to both, since both vehicles are based on the same chassis (they differ in only some details). The M2 carries a crew of three and a six-man infantry squad. The M3 on the other hand carries only a two-man scout team and additional radios, TOW and Dragon or Javelin missiles.

Where did you find the source for this statement? According to Camp Colt:..., the Bradley was always to be a composite vehicle, designed specifically to satisfy the needs of both Infantry and Cavalry. That being true, and given the Army's naming conventions of using a common name for all versions of a program that share all or most components, it is highly unlikely that they would assign a seperate name for what is - for want of a better description - essentially an identical vehicle which is internally re-arranged to fulfill similar but distinct missions. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The M3 Bradley CFV is a designation confirmed by Army sources. While it seems that they do not warrant different designations, it is likely that the history behind who it was to be named after had some part in the desire for a seperate designation. By your logic there should have been no way that the XM107 rifle could have come into being, since it should have been, from all accounts a variant of the M82 rifle, already type classified. The Army is well known for its refusal to change things once on paper, and it was likely that after the M3 Devers CFV designation was dropped, it was simply easier to change the name rather than the entire designation. -- Thatguy96 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, what is the source of the Devers statement? I did a google, and the hits returned this article and derivatives thereof. If there is no citation, then it needs to go. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

  • Lead-in needs expansion to a full paragraph.
  • Production History: really does not discuss production. It has a description that might fit better in the lead-in and descriptions of books and a movie about the production.
  • Overview: duplication of aramaments in the lead and in the aramaments section.
  • Operators: US and Saudi Arabia

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

M7 BCOTM

I was a driver for a M7 varient of the bradley in Iraq, and was disapointed to find there is no entry for that partcular varient. The vehicle is basically a TOC crammed into the back of a bradley and features 11 antennae, and 2 satelite dishes (ruggedized). It is meant as a generals command vehicle, though it sees little use in this war. There are only 5 M7s in existance, and I maintained and drove 1 of them, so I think I might be of some help on the entry for this rare vehicle.

If anyone wants to help me make an entry for the M7, contact me at bschak1984@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anathema1917 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


edit 18JAN2007

The M7 Fire Support Team Vehicle is not a BCOTM, although they do share many common features, the distinguishing feature of the BCOTM is the server stack and multiple computer terminals in what would otherwise be the dismount seating area. As noted, only 5 of these vehicles exist, 4 of them being in "active" use and 1 sitting in a mueseum. The general attitude towards this vehicle is that it was an interesting excursion, but not worthwhile to persue. 68.116.244.252 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Anathema1917

Incorrect Figure

It is said "As of early 2006, total losses, including friendly fire and non-combat incidents, were at 50 Bradleys."

Link provided as reference talks about combat losses only. Looks small anyway.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.9.68 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-17

I corrected it just now to say simply "combat losses". -Amatulic 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle

Is this still in use- I thought it was replaced by the Linebacker? As I understand it, this was a mod designed to carry a dismount Stinger team. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Armament

"(1) THE BASIC LOAD FOR EACH IFV IS: 

   (A) 25MM - 900 RDS ON-BOARD, 500 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (B) 7.62MM (COAX MG) - 2200 RDS ON-BOARD, 1070 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (C) 7.62MM (M60 MG) - 2200 RDS ON-BOARD, 1200 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (D) 5.56MM - 2160 RDS ON-BOARD, 1080 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (E) TOW - 7 RDS ON-BOARD, 6 RDS BULK LOADED.
   (F) LAW - 3 RDS ON-BOARD."

-http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/bnI006AA.htm. The article never said anything about an M60, 5.56mm gun, or LAW. Are these secondary weapons that the article didn't mention? My first thought was that this must be ammo for the infantry squad, but an equivalent page for the M3 shows the same ammo in larger quantities. They seem a bit big for crew sidearms. Does anyone know what these refer to? Also, what does bulk loaded mean? 69.12.155.64 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how old that loadout is, but the article refers to the only weapon I know for sure out of that that's still in the loadout. Note that's from the BIOP for the original M2, not any of the follow-on variants as well. The M72 LAW has likely been replaced by the M136 if still in the loadout at all. I would guess the M60 MG is likely a commander's weapon, which is not on production vehicles (unless you can find me a picture with one fitted). The 5.56mm refers to the M231 FPW that's mentioned in the article. -- Thatguy96 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That list seems quite old. The M60 was never mounted on a Bradley. As of 1993, there were only 2 M60s in each Bradley company in 2nd Bde, 1st Cav- I'm not even sure the M60 is still issued. The LAW was out of issue well before then. Ammo would be ready loaded in the weapon or bulk loaded- stored in the vehicle, generally under the floorboards. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Caption

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the photo shown in the "overview" section is not an M2A3. It lacks the Commander's Independent Viewer (CIV). Best guess based on the color, TOW launcher, and location is an M2A2 ODS Variant. Thoughts? SuperJewBoy 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:M2 loading.jpg Yes-this looks like an A2. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

M6 More effective?

I don't think it's more effective because of fireports. The fireports are very hard to use and even when they can be used the infantry can only fire a M4 carbine or similar gun, whilst the occupants are made more vulnerable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobodymk2 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

M2A3

M2A3 redirects to here, despite the fact that this page never mentions the M2A3. globalsecurity.org has a page on it.

M2A3 is a BFV. 75.15.186.175 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Armour

Does anyone know about the armour thickness of the M2 Bradley?chubbychicken 07:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the thickness but I do know that it is a compressed aluminum alloy, as for the reactive armor I'd perfer not to get into the specifics just to say that it defeats low yield projectile explosives I.E. RPG's

It is spaced laminate armor composed of rolled (not pressed) aluminum (approx 40mm) and rolled steel (approx 20mm) armor, exact figures depends on armor location, designed to stop up to 30mm APFSDS round.--83.237.166.159 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The A0 series armor protects the vehicle against 14.5 mm AP. This statement is true for side armor only.--91.77.219.82 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

TOW/transmission

"The M2A0 was can be identified by its standard TOW missile system and 500-horsepower engine with manual transmission."

If you can look at a Bradley and identify the model by this, you must be psychic. The TOW missile changed, but there are no apparent changes to the launcher. The Bradley has always had a automatic transmission- made by Cummings as I recall. --67.129.240.243 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) --Gadget850 ( Ed) (must have got logged out)

The easiest way to visually identify an A0 variant is the bustle rack on the rear of the turret. On the A0 the rack wall is anglged at around 30-40 degrees back into the turret. The later versions are straight up/down to allow more storage and easier retrieveal of externally stored gear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCFalco(ret) (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Burton Controversy

It seems to me that the whole 'live fire' testing hubub was rather glibly mentioned in the article considering its importance at the time (combined with other similar glitches with different programs). The subsequent throwaway line about the vehicle's survivability (which was displayed in the Gulf) would be disputed by Burton who, in his book, refers to a number of changes that were made to the BFV. These modifications, he argues, are a big part of the reason for success in the field. I think it might be useful to take the small mention of this part of development and expand it into its own section, and I'll do that a bit later on unless anyone has any particular objections... it'll probably take awhile though, I'll have to find all my docs on my hard drive that I used for a project involving the BFV before... Epthorn 19:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article currently has the statement, "Tests showed that the Bradley, in its initial version, had to be totally redesigned in order to protect the life of soldiers when hit by a shell or a missile.", which is WAAAY too strong to backed up by what actually happened. The vehicle was not "totally redesigned", it simply had the ammo storage altered, which was a minor change. Pmw2cc (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Foreign users?

As I remember reading Jane's vehicle guides a few years ago, Saudi Arabia did receive some 400 M2s. Should I add it? I forgot which edition. Ominae (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


The Saudi's did in fact receive the BFV. Transition support for the program was provided by the BFV NETT and the BFV Master Gunner School. Although I did not participate in this particular program I was an instructor for the MG course and also served with the NETT during this time frame. The Saudi's were also heavily involved in the purchase of the LAV which I was directly involved in supporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCFalco(ret) (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pentagon Wars"

Somewhere reference should be made to the movie "Pentagon Wars", as it was about the development of the Bradley. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/ drh (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is already referenced under Production History. Vstr (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reorg Suggestion

Currently the article is organized as follows: 

     Overview
     Production history
     Combat history
     Variants
     Armament
     Operators
     References
     See also
     External links

Which is a bit different from how most AFVs tend to be organized. I'd like to suggest that it be changed to: 

     Overview
     Development History
     Production history
     Combat history
     Variants
     Armament
     Operators
     References
     See also
     External links

Some of the stuff that's in the current "Production History" section is redundant or belongs in Development History not Production. Pmw2cc (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

suggested move (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

i suggest we move this to "bradley fihgting vehcials" as the artical refers to the M2 and M3.(Esskater11 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Comment/Support: I suggest we move this page to "M2/M3 Bradley" or "M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle" rather than that suggested. Technically the M2 is the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and the M3 is the Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV). To clarify the point, I support the name change, but to the name I suggested instead of simply "Bradley Fighting Vehicles." You wouldn't suggest moving say "M16 rifle" to "M16 rifles" to cover its subvariants. -- Thatguy96 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
support This article also covers the M6, M7 and other variants. There is not enough difference there to warrant a fork to a new article. Bradley fighting vehicles does make sense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

so far it seems noon e objects but im gona leave it to smeone tohchange it(Esskater11 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

The new name is non-intuitive and the use of a plural does not follow Wikipedia convention. However, your juvenile action of moving the page (to a mis-spelled new name) after a whole 3 days of discussion are a fait-accompli as it can't be moved back without an admin. Well done, editors of your skill and judgement are what make Wikipedia what it is today. Riddley 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm going to be equally arrogant and just change it again hehe. -- Thatguy96 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you for being an dick and not politley correct me, i made an honest mistake i was just trying to help. (Esskater11 02:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good God, stop acting like children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.132.20 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing since the second rename request that was opened after this was done by someone. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle → M2 Bradley — wouldn't call it the M2/M3/M6/M7 Bradley. Split off M3 Bradley Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unconvinced. The M2 and M3 are the main variants, so agree that M2/M3/M6/M7 is not appropriate. But, it seems excessive to split the article, as most of the material applies to both the infantry (M2) and cavalry (M3) versions. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unneeded. I don't think the differences between M2, M3, M6, etc are different enough to warrant splitting up this article. Based on what is in this article, a separate article on the M6 and other derivatives would be a fairly short. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll start today. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle → Bradley Fighting Vehicle — 70.29.210.242 is right, some sort of parent article should exist. M2, M3 and possibly others should have their own articles. I've started an M3 Bradley article on my userspace

  • Support. As noted above, this violates the Weaponry Task Force article naming convention, but on reflection the common name of all these vehicles is simply Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and I agree this is the best solution overall. Unsure whether M2 and M3 variants really need articles, or even whether it matters either way, but I think this proposed move is a good step in any case. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The army also uses this term.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

M2/M3 merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge M2 and M3 articles here. -fnlayson (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The M2 Bradley and M3 Bradley articles mostly contain content duplicated from this article. The small amount of additional information could easily be integrated in to this article, making it easier to locate information on all variants of the vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwilson (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose: These were split off just a few months ago (see sections above). The M2 article is fine, but the M3 article needs work. -fnlayson (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Nay: It gets very confusing. Marcus Qwertyus 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) is the basic version of the Army's "Bradley Family of Vehicles (FOV)" and while the M2 / M3 / M7 etc... are separate and distinct vehicles for specialized purposes, the goal was to have a common chassis to simplify the maintenance requirements and reduce the amount of replacement parts that a unit was required to have on hand. There are similar examples of this as with the FMTV / LMTV / MTV FOV, the HMMWV FOV and the M109 FOV. This website can be set up similar to those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.51.70 (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If they are merged, you can bet that within a few months people will say that the article is too long and suggest splitting it up again. Avmarle (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

article name

please change the name to Bradley IFV or M3A3 Bradley IFv; this looks like an article about what to use incase the word is under attack by bradleys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.101.134 (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cost?

I'm aware that the Bradley is not available for individual civilian purchase, and my reasons for asking are too complicated (and uninteresting to anyone else) to go into, BUT: Can someone knowledgeable suggest what the approximate cost of a Bradley would be if one could purchase it? I assume it would be less expensive than a tank and rather more expensive than a Ford SUV.... --Michael K SmithTalk 15:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Combat usage

The note about combat usage in the Iraq War is incorrect, as it cites a Strategy Page blog article that is also incorrect. The wiki article incorrectly states "By 2007, the Army had stopped using the M2 Bradley in combat, instead favoring more survivable MRAPs.[5]"

The Army began reducing its use of all tracked combat vehicles in Iraq as the war progressed, to reduce footprint. However, Bradleys (as well as Abrams tanks) remained in Iraq until the US withdrawal at the end of 2011. In fact, combat attacks against BFVs occurred as late as 2010. For a better cite to support Iraq, usethis article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218

"Honking their horns, the last batch of around 25 American military trucks and tractor trailers carrying Bradley fighting vehicles crossed the border early on Sunday morning, their crews waving at fellow troops along the route." - Reuters/Joseph Logan.

A more correct entry would read:

"After 2007, the Army began to reduce its use of tracked combat vehicles in Iraq, instead favoring MRAPs. Bradley Fighting Vehicles remained in Iraq until the final withdrawal in December 2011." [cite link above]

76.112.36.180 (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The BCOTM

What of the ill fated Bradley command track variant? Only 5 exist, but I took one of them to "combat" (my vehicle was passed down from OIF 1, where the DC of 4ID used it). My personal vehicle was one of the variants produced in 2004. The official name of the variant was M7. Although the service run of the vehicle was VERY limited (as I said numbskulls, 5!) 1(?) of them saw action in OIF 1. That, as it turns out, was MY vehicle. That vehicle was under command of the 4th ID commander himself. I hesitate to say what made this vehicle stand out, but it had 2 commo dishes (of different pattern) and a SERVER STACK. It also did not have a TOW, as the back wash of a missile would blow off the many antennae. The vehicle possessed 3 screens, in the 'dismount' area, displaying 3 different programs (thus the server stack jackass!)

Answer: The M7 is nomenclature for the original, analog Bradley Fire Support Team Vehicle (BFIST). Seven M7 BFISTs were converted into BCOTM vehicles as an experiment for Iraq, replacing the FIST mission equipment package in the back of the vehicle with Army Battle Command System (ABCS) comms gear. The BCOTM version was never a standard variation of the vehicle. The vehicles were withdrawn; five of them remain at Red River Army Depot awaiting future demilitarization or conversion into digital vehicles (M7 BFIST-SA or A3 BFIST). 76.112.36.180 (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)PM Bradley

Duplicate of M2 Bradley

I believe this article is a duplicate of the more complete page under M2 Bradley.

130.85.56.86 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The BFV page is about the family of vehicles. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Big gap

The article merely mentions "the troubled development history of the Bradley" and says essentially nothing more about it. The many problems that cropped up in the program caused something of a (small) scandal when they came to light: everything from armor that vaporized when hit to an inability to cross all but the shallowest streams. This omission leaves a big hole in the article's coverage. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So where were all of these "problems" when the Bradleys actually went into combat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.185.105 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I imagine they avoided the multitudes of streams in the deserts of the Middle East somehow. 199.85.233.8 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ODS variant

I can't see anywhere that the ODS acronym is defined? 202.6.144.21 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/linebacker/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Total program cost ?

The article states total cost of the program is $5,664,100,000, and that a total of 6,724 Bradleys were produced, at an average unit cost of $3,166,000. But my calculator tells me that 6,724 * $3,166,000 equals $21.288.184.000 ?! That doesn't add up.. --83.84.132.149 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Development and production costs are separate things. 188.238.42.151 (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Pentagon Wars Movie

I am watching "The Pentagon Wars", an excellent 1998 made-for-HBO film that tells an interesting story of the Bradley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtlQn5lmTk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

... although the the book that inspired the movie is listed in the references: Burton, James G. (1993) The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD: ISBN 1-55750-081-9

I was wondering why there is no mention of this movie in the article; I think it is very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I will add it now. BP OMowe (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Atari Bradley Trainer

There is a bit of history between the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the video game industry, but I don't see it covered in this article, so wanted to ask what people's opinions are about this.

In 1980, Atari released "Battlezone", a tank simulator game using vector graphics. Not long after its arcade release, the US Army approached Atari and asked them to develop a special version of the game as a training simulator for the BFV. Several of Atari's developers refused to work on it because of the association with the military.

The Battlezone (1980 video game) article has a section devoted to this bit of history, with citations. While only two units were ever produced (and one is presumed lost), it seems significant since this is one of only a handful of times in the video game industry's history that a game developer has worked directly with a branch of the military on a project.

Is this notable enough to include a back-reference in the BFV article as well? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If the training game had some documented effects on the military, then certainly. But without that, it's really just trivia; bits of military involvement in gaming actually goes back to the 19th century (e.g. Kriegsspiel (wargame)). I know of at least a few times military officers worked with some board-game/war-game companies about training possibilities. Although I haven't heard, I'd guess a few similar attempts happened later with video game companies, with nothing of much significance coming from it. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle/Archive_1&oldid=1130997373"