Why didn’t the British un ironically buy American in regards to IFVs in the Cold War? The British warrior was rife with design flaws even at the time of its release
>non-stabilized gun
>fires from 3 round clips
>non-electric turret
Why didnt the British un ironically buy American in regards to IFVs in the Cold War?
Because they were the least worse option available.
Worse than Bradley and Bradley could have been available with some political maneuvering
No one wants the Bradley, it has 1 more export client than the warrior
And about 3000 more units sold than the warrior
>proprietary coaxial MG not used by any other vehicle in bong inventory
>not even a bong gun, so its not like they were supporting local industry
Because they were the least worse option available.
>proprietary coaxial MG not used by any other vehicle in bong inventory
Challenger 2 has the same coax
>not even a bong gun, so its not like they were supporting local industry
They are built under licence in the UK
But why the un stabilized cannon? That right there is enough to right the vehicle off as shit
Most IFVs of the time were without them. Neither AMX-10 or Marder did either.
RARDEN gave them the punch they felt they needed, it was already in service, and was built in the UK and could use the UK's own ammo stocks. Easy pick.
There WAS a plan to upgrade them as they saw that stabilised guns were in the near future, so they didn't ignore that. But once that upgrade roadmap came about into the late 80s and 90s, the Cold War had ended and a lot of stuff got cut as it wasn't really necessary any more.
There were like 10 different "regunned Warriors" made, but the funding was never afforded in a post-Cold War world where there was little need.
CVR(t) Sabre also had the same chain gun
>why did the British *frick up military procurement*
I wonder
Why does it have to look so cool while being a glorified POS battle taxi
Poor design
Because we eat baked beans we don't want to be a baked bradley bean
Not funny at all
Got a new tool bag yet?
Bradley had a much better main gun, better ATGMs, better optics, and almost as good protection. Bradley beats out warrior by a wide margin
>Better optics
>Not long after the decision was made to turn off lights and drive using optics, a Bradley crew flipped off a bridge they didn’t even know they were crossing
>Better
Yes much better optics. The unsourced greentext account of a single Bradley won’t change that
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/09/28/problems-plagued-bradley-crews-before-mishap-killed-3-soldiers/
>In the Iraq War, the Bradley proved vulnerable to improvised explosive device and rocket-propelled grenade attacks, but casualties were light with the crew able to escape. In 2006, total losses included 55 Bradleys destroyed and some 700 others damaged.[25][26] By the end of the war, about 150 Bradleys had been destroyed.
Lmao what a piece of shit
>but casualties were light with the crew able to escape
meanwhile, in a less-protected vehicle...
The Bradley has seen so much action that these numbers are impressive and speaks to the Bradley’s survivability
>one Bradley was killed when his vehicle was hit by Iraqi fire, possibly from an Iraqi BMP-1
Not impressive at all
>2 warriors were killed when their vehicles were hit by an Iraqi BMP-1
Should use superior Russian IFV design. IFVs so good everybody rides outside them instead of inside
What would an ironic purchase of American IFVs looked like?
Buy a handful promising to take a full order later, and then use them to develop your own domestic designs?
What are you asking? Your unironically moronic
something with a ferrous hull. So basically anything as long as it isn't an M113.
Bc the cold war was saber rattling and it didnt matter. IFVs werent gonna stop the reds at the Fulda Gap. Developing random weapons and tech was the US game. Brits were also fricked up from the War still.
>Northag
>Brits
>Fulda Gap
What the frick are you on?
Bradley was kinda shit until the A2 and ODS versions. It had firing ports ffs.
And until these versions in the 1990s it couldn't carry enough men for a British infantry section so would have been an absolute no-go.
Warrior's major compromises of using an outdated cannon from the 1960s largely stem from it needing a very small turret ring to fit 7-10 dismounts in accordance with British doctrine
Warrior can take a pounding and eat rpg all day. M2 Bradley can't.
I beg your pardon?