Talk:Bradley Fighting Vehicle

No dissenting opinions?

For a military program that became emblematic of defense procurement problems (and contractor promises), nothing has been said in this article about the shortcomings of the vehicle, nor the systemic problems that it represents. A quick search of news articles from the day reveals several from reputable sources (examples: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/23/us/testing-of-arms-held-inadequate.html, or http://articles.latimes.com/1986-11-10/local/me-28828_1_bradley-fighting-vehicle) that show how a deeper discussion about this vehicle is needed. For a vehicle that's embroiled in procurement and testing problems, it's odd that this article ONLY points out it's specs and battlefield successes. I fear we may be losing the forest through the trees.

Additionally, nowhere in the article is the book "Pentagon Wars" discussed. Again, it seems like it deserves a mention or two. Another poster further down mentioned that it deserved a mention, and it's concerning to see that it was added by "BP Omowe" only 6 months ago, but now the article seems to be scrubbed of it. This fact makes me think that this isn't just a lapse of research, but an intentional campaign to move this article towards a biased POV.

24.9.114.126 (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. In fact this article reads like a management excuse for the development problems of the Bradley. It has an extremely long, and technically detailed development section about previous and competing designs as if to indirectly excuse the lengthy, and costly development. It has no mention of specific criticisms such as the Bradley's failure to meet projectile resistance specifications and the British aluminum armor vaporifics report as mentioned in Burton's book. It treats Burton's book, reports, and congressional testimony as satirical fiction while giving little detail on their contents. Interesting, and revealing that this article is so long, and filled with arguably relevant detail but the wikipidia article on the movie based on Burton's book is just a stub. 98.164.67.205 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Having read Burton's book, I prefer to pretend it's satire. The absolute insanity of every test and deliberate sandbagging detailed in it by Burton just boggle my mind - and the fact that he had the gall to ask Navy to blow up one of their new vessels with a Soviet torpedo just to see 'what realistically would happen' seems childish and ridiculous waste of funds. --JJASal (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, regardless of your opinion on the book or not, there are plenty of other sources that cover the controversy of it's development. I'm going to ignore your Red Herring about the Navy test. What is less satire is his congressional testimony which you can read yourself here. Actually I think that would be a good source for this article. I'll see if I can add it later. Regardless, I also agree that this article has a biased point of view. I also did a search for news articles from that time, and here's another example substantiating that the tests were rigged. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/01/28/The-Pentagon-rigged-tests-on-the-Bradley-Fighting-Vehicle/4913507272400/ further, the vast majority of the sources in the references lists are all military industry media organizations such as nationaldefensemagazine.org which is the magazine of the NDIA, National Defense Industry Association. I do not suggest that those sources be removed as they are reliable, but with criticism of the project absent, this article is is not measuring up to WP:Balance. A good example of what the development section could look like is the Design and Development page for the F-35 [[1]]. --2001:56A:F31B:B00:48B9:63EA:92DB:17FB (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Warhammer Bradley?

Does the Warhammer version even exist? Outside a single slightly dubious archived page there is zero information to support the idea of a Bradley with Javelin in place of TOW. The cited manual makes no reference to Javelin being mounted on the Bradley and this site is the only site to make the claim. As the M2 Bradley page notes (citing this page), the A2 ODS could carry Javelin missiles because the Dragon had been retired. Older M2 models could carry M47 Dragon missiles because said missile was carried at the squad level by mechanized infantry.--MandolinMagi (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you see? Bradley Development: What Pentagon Wars got right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:E38D:4E00:F7FF:1735:7D38:9464 (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

25mm taking out Iraqi T-72s?

The wikipedia article claims that the 25mm gun of the bradley can take out T-72s at close range, yet the cited link doesn't really support that. It states that M2 bradley took out some T-72s (without specifying how), there's nothing baout "at close range" either. The linked article does mention the APDS rounds as a secret to its success, but its not explicit (and quite dubious) that this refers to the success against the T-72s, and not say... BMPs and T-55s...31.164.58.229 (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's not super clear from the source. Fixed. Schierbecker (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Disastrously spread out

I do not understand why the M2 and even the M3 have their own pages, which are forced to repeat a lot of the information contained here, and which do not circle back to the more detailed development history on this page. I propose to bring everything back to this page. Podlesok86 (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally agree, the M2 and M3 have minor differences but having them spread out in two pages not only spreads out editors but as well as readers. JebKermun (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The differences are more than just minor. They're both doctrinally used for a different purpose, and substantially different in capabilities. In general, it's preferable to have multiple pages if there's sufficient information to support them, rather than cluttering everything up into one overstuffed location that becomes too long and unwieldy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The number of vehicles to be delivered to Ukraine

With regards to this, the current info is that the US is sending 59 BFVs to Ukraine, in addition to 50 that were announced previously[2]. If there is no additional info, it should be routine calculation to say the US is delivering 109 BFVs. If not, please include both numbers. I think the IP editor was doing a calculation based on the two press releases. Politrukki (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the number was already fixed, with even better source, while I was typing. Politrukki (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added a citation to Reuters for the 109 figure. It's not super obvious from the press release whether the 59 is in addition to the 50 already sent. Schierbecker (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Cost of the project citation?

Citation 30 states the project cost was $5.7 billion for 6700+ vehicles at 3.2 million a piece. Simple math states the production costs alone are over 51 billion, let alone the development cost. The citations website own citations don't list any prices. Where are these numbers coming from? Either they're wrong or their meaning is ambiguous. 132.175.114.39 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Citation 30 was written in 2000, for a program size of 1602 units. This is why you cannot just use "simple math" to extrapolate a number. If you have a reliable source with updated program costs, we can include it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)