Talk:Bradley Fighting Vehicle

message: 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)
thread_title:  No dissenting opinions? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Warhammer Bradley?

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it's not super clear from the source. Fixed. Schierbecker (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  25mm taking out Iraqi T-72s? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disastrously spread out

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  The number of vehicles to be delivered to Ukraine