Comments on: More GCV Details Emerge

By: david farrell

david farrell — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:10:18 +0000

For someone that served on a Bradley and taught soldiers as a contractor, I can definitely argure that had there been 1500 to 2000 Bradleys manning more check points and covering more terrain by owning the open terrain there would have never been an IED threat the size that our boys faced in 2004–2006. More troops more security. But we went in there on the cheap and our sons and daughters paid the price. Brads and M1 Tanks were designed to fight frontal fights and work with Combat Engineers to clear obstacle belts.

By: Rollen

Rollen — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:21:09 +0000

How will this very huge heavy piece to run on Russian roads and muddy terrain that is just plain fens, which instead should be easy vehicle that would float over the terrain? American defense planning seems desperate and ignorant — like when Lockheed Martin developed the Joint Strike Fighter, which is not good enough in the battle.

By: John C

John C — Sun, 30 May 2010 11:48:53 +0000

The bits in the unmanned vehicles have shown that they generally take up more room than a man takes and need the same protection if you want it to actually survive in combat. They also take more people in uniform to maintain, just different job skills. Unmanned systems are false economy.

The Bronco isn’t a fighting vehicle either and the articulated drive train is not able to be protected from IEDs.

By: Don Meaker

Don Meaker — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:26:41 +0000

The whole front of that picture is one shot trap after another… Yechh

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:04:28 +0000

Yeah, its so pig ugly that when the enemy see they will die choking on thier own vomit.

By: roland

roland — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:53:12 +0000

I think if we look back at the history we maybe able to save on cost and become again the world most powerfull and not spend too much on our resources if we just upgrade most of our US oudated arsenal and upgrade it to a modern-advance equipment and fighting defense tool. Say AC-130 Spectre and Sperman Tank. We have mass production this in WWII. The Sherman Tank was mass produce at 45,000 units in WWII and the And that was just thrown away to junk today. What if we just upgrade these arsenal. We can become again the worlds most powerfull nation.

By: Ted W

Ted W — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:01:03 +0000

I assume this is referring to modular vehicle components. Are modular vehicle units such as illustrated by the ST Kinetics Bronco modular connection also under consideration? Unmanned vehicle units can be much lighter as there is no crew to protect. The unmanned vehicle unit running in front of the crewed unit can be sacrificed.

By: Why

Why — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:40:16 +0000

RE: “…isn’t as large a threat”

I disagree — the missile threat is far easier to encounter because it doesn’t require occupation — IEDs are a threat right now because the enemy is poor, unsupplied, and we are an occupying force. In terms of actual military conflict, the missile threat is far greater because its easier to employ.

I guess the issue is do we foresee the US military occupying more, or engaging other military forces more?

As to my question regarding IED proofing — I am asking specifically what type of blast are folks referring to as “IED Proof” — numbers please. I am well aware of what IEDs are, how and what most are made of, etc.…

By: fdjz

fdjz — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:56:12 +0000

ww2? lol more like ww1. not that bradley has horrible touch en vouge..

By: etrout

etrout — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:28:39 +0000

Well said sferrin, John, and Mike; I hope that isn’t what it’s going to look like. I could see that tipping over all the time.