>>26154566>But design creep fuckery instead>produced a vehicle that carries half the troops it was supposed to
Take a look at all the IFVs of the period. All of them went with the 6 man squad, even the BMP.>looks like a tank but has jack shit for armor
No shit, it's a bradley. It's still better armored than what the Soviets Fielded, and on top of that it's even better armored than an M113, which only maxed slightly past .50 cal with a bolt on kit!>a chain gun that can't penetrate real armor
It was either that or mount an even heavier gun that would be sub par, make the thing weigh stupidly front heavy, and still not do the job for the Abrams. If this tank were to be an awful attempt at being a jack of all trades, upgunning the fucker to take on tanks would've made it abysmal.> a TOW launcher that requires the vehicle to hold sights from shot to hit
That's TOW for you. Yet there are plenty of tanks which use fly by wire. Such as the Bradley's Competitor, the BMP-2 which had a wireguided 9M113 Konkurs. For the 1980s, this shit was quite standard.>and a scout variant that's too tall, too wide, too loud
Your one legitimate criticism, but even that was a tradeoff to make for better survivability and for crew ease. The BMP-2 is radically shorter than the Bradley fighting vehicle, but in return it's even /worsely/ armored, is especially cramped, and the spare fueltanks are located in the fucking rear doors.>It's a slapdash piece of junk that forced a change in operational doctrine to fit its "capabilities," instead of the original intent of replacing the M113.
The doctrine came first, dorkus. The West ditched the APC concept when the first BMP-1 got spotted in 67, with a 73mm gun and an AT-3 Sagger missiles.