Bradley: A History of American Fighting and Suport Vehicles

464 Pages·1999·274.81 MB·English

by  R. P. Hunnicutt

BRADLEY
A History of American
Fighting and Support Vehicles
By R. P. Hunnicutt
BRADLEY
A HISTORY OF AMERICAN
FIGHTING AND SUPPORT VEHICLES
by
R.P. Hunnicutt
FOREWORD
by
Major General Stan R. Sheridan, USA Retired
PRESIDIO
Copyright © 1999 By R. P. Hunnicutt
First Edition
Published by Presidio Press
505B San Marin Drive, Suite 300
Novato,CA 94945-1340
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or by any information storage and retrieval systems, without
permission in writing from the Publisher. Inquiries should be addressed to
Presidio Press, 505B San Marin Drive, Suite 300, Novato, CA 94945-1340.
Library of Congress Cataloging-Publication-Data
Hunnicutt, R. P., 1926-
Bradley: A history of American fighting and support vehicles/
R. P. Hunnicutt ; foreword by Stan Sheridan.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-89141-694-3
1. Armored vehicles, Military- -United States- -History.
2. Vehicles, Military- -United States- -History. 3. M2 Bradley
infantry fighting vehicle. I. Title
UG446.5.H84423 1999
623.7'475--dc21
Printed in the United States of America
CONTENTS
Foreword 4 PART IV INFANTRY AND CAVALRY
Acknowledgements 6 FIGHTING VEHICLES 249
Improvised Fighting Vehicles 251
PART I DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPORT A New Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle 261
VEHICLES DURING WORLD The Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle 274
WAR II 7 The Appearance of the Bradley 282
Armored Personnel and Cargo Carriers 9 Vehicles Based upon the Bradley 303
Armored Command and Reconnaissance Vehicles 14 The Fighting Vehicle Systems Carrier 308
High Speed Tractors 16 Composite Armored Vehicles 318
Low Ground Pressure Vehicles 22
PART V LANDING VEHICLES 321
PART II EARLY POSTWAR DEVELOPMENT.. 27 The Legacy of World War II 323
New Armored Personnel Carriers 29 Postwar Development 325
A Lower Cost Armored Personnel Carrier 50 The LVTP5 Family 331
High Speed Tractors and Cargo Carriers 66 The LVTP7 Family 343
Low Ground Pressure Vehicles 72 The Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle 358
PART III A NEW FAMILY OF TRACKED PART VI ACTIVE SERVICE 365
CARRIERS 75 World War II 367
New Lightweight Designs 77 Korea 368
M113 Series of Armored Personnel Carriers 81 Vietnam 373
A Universal Chassis Based upon the M113 Series.... 110 War in the Persian Gulf 392
Low Ground Pressure Vehicles 128 Worldwide Service 398
Fire Support Vehicles 139 The Future 407
Command Post, Control, and Communication
Vehicles 161 PART VII REFERENCE DATA 411
Antitank Vehicles 174 Color Section 413
Antiaircraft Vehicles 186 Data Sheets 421
Engineer Vehicles 203
Recovery and Maintenance Vehicles 208
Chemical Warfare Vehicles 213 References and Selected Bibliography 466
Command and Reconnaissance Vehicles 222 Index 467
FOREWORD
by
Major General Stan R. Sheridan, USA Retired
CHARIOTS OF FIRE may be the title of an award crew/squad compartment was an unfightable and
winning Hollywood movie, but it is also a fitting crowded "arms room"; and the main armament was a
description of the many "soldier carrying" vehicles de- 20mm cannon with no armor killing capability.
scribed in this latest work on armored vehicles by Dick In 1975 the MICV program was reoriented and
Hunnicutt. In fact, chariots of one kind or another have combined with the Army's SCOUT and BUSH-
carried soldiers into battle throughout the history of MASTER (25mm cannon) programs into a single
warfare, dating as far back as the early Egyptians and vehicle program, named the Infantry and Cavalry
Romans. So it is appropriate that this latest in Dick Fighting Vehicle Program, which was later renamed in
Hunnicutt's series of volumes on Fighting Vehicles 1981 for General of the Army Omar N. Bradley. With
should now focus on the armored carriers, both fighting that reorientation came a reaffirmation of the Army's
and support, that inhabit today's modern battlefield. requirement and a redesign to today's BRADLEY
While this eminently qualified author covers the spec- Fighting Vehicle with its two man turret which places
trum of these vehicles in this newest volume, as the title the vehicle commander up high where he can see,
suggests, the thrust of this work is the U.S. Army's command, and fight the vehicle; the addition of a two
Infantry and Cavalry Fighting Vehicles and their deriv- TOW antitank missile launcher to give the Infantry
atives - The BRADLEY. While I find this entire volume Battalion a long range, front line, tank killing capability
intriguing and a true and factual reference for the without increasing the Army's force structure; a re-
scholar of fighting vehicles, as the U.S. Army's first stowed and redesigned crew compartment into a fighting
Program Manager for what has become known to the compartment from which mounted infantrymen can
world as the BRADLEY Fighting Vehicle System, it fight; and the replacement of the less than capable
appears appropriate for me to comment on the title- 20mm cannon with the battlefield worthy 25mm cannon
subject of Dick Hunnicutt's latest work. and its armor piercing and high explosive multipurpose
The history of the BRADLEY was long and ammunition. With this redesign and reorientation it
tortured, and today we take the design and the out- became readily apparent that the technical design
standing war fighting performance of the vehicle for challenge for the developer of the new vehicle was on a
granted - the two man turret, the two TOW antitank par with that of designing a tank; but with the added
missile launcher, the highly effective 25mm cannon human factors of carrying an infantry squad, allowing
system, the very reliable power train, its outstanding the vehicle to swim, and ultimately making it truly
cross country mobility, and the overall fightability of the fightable for the mounted infantryman. At the same
system. This was not always so. In the beginning, in the time, from a doctrine standpoint, the Mechanized
late 1960s and early 1970s, the Army was struggling to Infantry found itself in much the same position as the
determine and define just what it wanted as the replace- horse mounted Cavalry when the machine gun was
ment for the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) introduced to the battlefield. The design of the new
that was a workhorse during the Vietnam War and the mobile weapon system, when translated into fightable
backbone of the Army's mechanized infantry. Was the hardware, required a mounted infantry doctrine change
replacement to be another APC that brought fighting and the development of new operational concepts and
men to the battle in a protected "battlefield taxi" and tactics in order to take full advantage of the new and
then placed them in harms way to fight on foot; or was it added battlefield capabilities of a fighting vehicle. As an
to be a true fighting vehicle, giving the soldier a pro- example, firing on moving targets with the 25mm
tected place from which to assault, fight, and kill the cannon now required the infantry gunner to use tank
enemy? The result, in the early 1970s, was the latter, a gunnery techniques, totally foreign to the infantryman of
fighting vehicle concept called the Mechanized Infantry the late 1970s and early 1980s whose largest automatic
Combat Vehicle or MICV, which, when translated into weapon until then was a .50 caliber machine gun. As a
an all-up prototype in the mid 1970s, was unfightable: result of this and other operational capabilities and
i.e., the gunner was in a one man turret; the vehicle requirements of the new system, totally new training
commander was in the hull behind the driver where he packages also were required for the mounted infantry-
could not see to command or fight the vehicle; the man who would fight in the BRADLEY. To the Army's
4
credit, it bridged the doctrine, training, and tactics gaps BRADLEY is a highly mobile and effective battlefield
and has produced the world's most capable and finest killing machine; it is not an APC or battlefield taxi, but
mounted warriors. it does take soldiers to the battle and lets them fight
With this new concept, design, and training while mounted and protected; it is not a tank, nor is it
direction in hand, the vehicle development program heavily armored, but it does have a long range tank
proceeded successfully through the 1970s and early killing capability; and it exceeds the tank's cross country
1980s fighting off the "Too Big, Too Bulky, Too High" mobility and effectively compliments the tank on the
nay-sayers, a Presidential program cancellation, and battlefield. Today, with 6724 Infantry and Cavalry
three General Officer Reviews (1976, 77, and 78) by the Fighting Vehicles in the hands of U.S. Army soldiers
Army. With the program restart after the Presidential around the world, the BRADLEY is justly touted as the
cancellation in 1977, and the reaffirmation of the finest fighting vehicle of its kind in the world.
requirement, the design, and the concept by the three Looking back and forgetting the pain along the
General Officer Reviews, the program proceeded to way, one can say that the BRADLEY was a success
meet its congressionally mandated first production story, primarily because of the Army's belief in, and
delivery date of May 1981 without further hitches or support for, a fighting vehicle and the dedicated and
delays. In fact, the BRADLEY was the first, and I hand-in-hand team effort by all those directly involved
believe the only, tracked vehicle to be approved for in its development, production, and fielding - the Army
production by the Army and the Office of the Secretary Program Manager's Office, the Army Infantry and
of Defense on the first request. This was due primarily Cavalry users, and all of the many dedicated civilian
to the vehicle exceeding its overall system Reliability- contractors. A widely used development buzzword today
Availability-Maintainability (RAM) requirements during is PARTNERING, or joining together of all those in-
independent government acceptance testing. volved in a development program toward a common
But there is more to the BRADLEY story than goal; but without knowing it, that is what was done with
development, great designed-in system RAM, doctrinal the BRADLEY in the 1970s and early 1980s, long
changes, and the final Army acceptance and production before the word or the thought was in vogue in the
go-ahead. The real questions facing the BRADLEY Defense Department.
were: What do soldiers think of the vehicle? Is it really And what of the BRADLEY derivatives, or support
fightable? Does it meet the Army's needs? And how vehicles, during this process? In 1975, the Army had a
does it do in combat? The proof of any piece of combat need for a tracked vehicle platform for the Multiple
equipment issued to soldiers is its performance and Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and the fighting vehicle
soldier acceptance in combat, and the BRADLEY was chassis was chosen as the candidate platform, in reality,
no exception. The real proof then of the BRADLEY was what the Army really wanted was a highly mobile
Desert Storm where it received not only its baptism of tracked "pick-up truck" whose "truck bed" could be
fire in combat, but complete soldier acceptance. The used for many battlefield missions; but at the time, the
experience of the lead brigade of the 24th Mechanized only money available was for the development of a
Infantry Division's "Left Hook" operation is typical of MLRS carrier. Taking its lead from the very successful
the BRADLEY'S superb combat performance in the 100 and reliable automotive and suspension components of
hours of Desert Storm. The brigade's 120 BRADLEYS the original MICV chassis, the MLRS carrier was
traveled 360 miles, fighting all the way, with no vehicle developed, tested, accepted, and fielded with almost
drop-outs or losses. While the 25mm armor piercing complete commonality with the chassis of its sister
round did kill some T72 tanks from the side and rear, it fighting vehicle. The differences between the two being
was an over-kill against the Iraqi's infantry carriers in the physical rather than the mechanical aspects of the
(BMP), passing right through the BMPs and calling for chassis. Again, the proof of this derivative was its
the use of the more appropriate HEAT-MP round (High complete success and soldier acceptance in the combat
Explosive Antitank Multi-Purpose). The BRADLEY of Desert Storm. At the same time, the Army got its
soldiers of Desert Storm, and those using the vehicle in "pick-up truck". Today the derivative carrier's time has
places like Somalia and Bosnia, have resoundingly come for, among other uses, it is being strongly
endorsed the system and put to bed the nay-sayers, the considered by the Army as a command and control
questioners, and the critics by affirming that the vehicle, an ambulance, and a communications vehicle.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to list all of data. Linda Johns and Pat Elliott found many photo-
the sources that provided information during the graphs and technical manuals required for the project.
research for this volume. However, the most important At the Land Systems Division of General
of these must include Major General Stan Sheridan who Dynamics, Dr. Philip W. Lett obtained information on
also was kind enough to write the foreword for the book. their advanced amphibian assault vehicle.
Once again, my thanks go to General Donn A. Kenneth Smith-Christmas of the U.S. Marine Corps
Starry for permission to quote from his book Mounted Museum at Quantico, Virginia provided data on the
Combat in Vietnam. LVTP-5.
At the Tank Automotive and Armament Command, My old friend Fred Crismon was the source for
Dr. Richard McClelland and others were a great help in many very rare photographs.
obtaining material for the data sheets. Roland Asoklis Many of the field modifications to the various
provided information on the Future Scout and Cavalry vehicles in Vietnam are illustrated by photographs taken
System. by the late James Loop during his service in that
The Patton Museum at Fort Knox was an important country.
source of both data and photographs. John Purdy and Michael Green, Greg Stewart, Jim Mesko, Hans
Charles Lemons spent a lot of time helping me sort out a Halberstadt and Scott Gourley also provided photo-
number of problems. graphs of several vehicles. There would have been
At Aberdeen Proving Ground, Dr. William F. several more gaps in the data sheets without the help of
Atwater, Director of the Ordnance Museum, and Alan Jacques Littlefield and his incredible collection of
Killinger located much of the information on some of armored vehicles. Dean and Nancy Kleffman came up
the earlier vehicles. with some new photographs that were particularly
At United Defense (formerly FMC), William helpful to the research program.
Highlander put me in touch with many of the people My thanks go to Jon Clemens of Armor magazine
who worked on their vehicles. Mr. Adolf Quilici for his help with the photographs and his permission to
provided information on the early development of the quote from Armor.
FMC personnel carriers. John Giacomazzi and Bruce Special thanks also go to Becky Page for the
Heron were particularly helpful in locating drawings and preparation of the dust jacket for this volume.
6
PART I
DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPORT VEHICLES
DURING WORLD WAR II
During World War II, the standard armored personnel carrier was the open top, lightly armored, half-track vehicle. Above the M3A1 personnel
carriers of the Third Armored Division cross the Seine River in France on 26 August 1944.
ARMORED PERSONNEL AND CARGO CARRIERS
During World War II, armored personnel carriers 105mm howitzer motor carriage M7 in the British
appeared under a variety of names. These included forces. Many of these surplus vehicles were then
tractors, cargo carriers, and armored utility vehicles. converted to armored personnel carriers by removing the
When used to tow an artillery piece, they were referred howitzer and modifying the armor and the stowage
to as prime movers. The armored half-track was stan- arrangement. This conversion provided a full-tracked
dardized during this period as the carrier for infantry in armored personnel carrier that could easily keep up with
the armored divisions of the U.S. Army. These lightly the tanks in cross-country operations.
armored, open top, vehicles served in many roles When the Canadian Army was equipped with
including personnel carriers, mortar carriers, and self- Sherman tanks, a large number of the earlier Ram tanks
propelled artillery. Although they were intended to became available for conversion to other duties. With
combine the best features of the wheeled and full- the turret removed and the interior modified, they
tracked vehicles, it also was true that they combined the became personnel carriers with mobility and armor
worst characteristics of each. They were not as efficient protection equal to that of the medium tank. Some old
on roads as armored cars and they lacked the cross- Sherman III (M4A2) medium tanks also had their turrets
country mobility of the full-tracked vehicles. removed and were converted to armored personnel
The introduction of the Sexton 25 pounder self- carriers by the British forces. All of these converted
propelled gun resulted in the replacement of the early vehicles were referred to as Kangaroos.
9
The armored utility vehicle M39 is sketched above towing an antitank gun.
The appearance of the high performance 76mm gun was designed to accompany the 8 inch howitzer motor
motor carriage Ml8 as a self-propelled tank destroyer carriage T84. The chassis of both the T84 and the T31
revealed the need for an equivalent vehicle to serve as a was based upon components of the M26 Pershing tank.
personnel carrier, reconnaissance vehicle, and prime Companion vehicles for the self-propelled artillery
mover for the towed guns in the tank destroyer utilizing the light tank chassis followed the same
battalions. The Ml8 chassis was modified by removing pattern. The cargo carrier T22 was designed as the
the turret and changing the stowage to provide a suitable companion vehicle for the 4.5 inch gun motor carriage
vehicle. Standardized as the armored utility vehicle T16 or the 155mm howitzer motor carriage T64. Like
M39, it served in the U.S. Army until the end of the war the artillery motor carriages, the T22 was based upon the
in Korea. However, its very light armor was vulnerable light tank M5A1. The cargo carrier T23 also used the
to rifle caliber fire at close range and the open top chassis of the M5A1 and was intended to accompany the
exposed the crew to artillery air bursts. 40mm gun motor carriage T65. When the artillery motor
Numerous wartime development programs were carriages were redesigned to utilize the chassis of the
initiated to provide full-tracked, armored, personnel and later light tank M24, a similar change was made in the
ammunition carriers as companion vehicles for the self- cargo carriers. They now became the cargo carriers
propelled artillery mounted on the chassis of the T22E1 and T23E1. However, neither vehicle was placed
medium and light tanks. These companion vehicles also in production.
were conversions of the same chassis used to mount the The heavy tractors T2 and T16 were early prime
self-propelled weapon. movers intended to serve as armored personnel carriers
The T14 cargo carrier, based upon the medium tank for the crew of the heavy artillery pieces to which they
chassis, was modernized and standardized as the cargo were assigned. Based upon the early medium tank,
carrier M30. It saw action as the companion vehicle to neither the T2 nor the T16 proved to be satisfactory and
the 155mm gun motor carriage M12. With the they never entered production. Later, in December 1943,
introduction of the 155mm gun motor carriage M40, a some M31 and M32B1 tank recovery vehicles were
new companion vehicle was designed using the same converted into prime movers for use with the 8 inch gun
chassis. Originally designated as the cargo carrier T30, and the 240mm howitzer. The turret, armament, and
it was modified to permit the stowage of either 155mm, recovery equipment was removed and they were
8 inch, or 240mm ammunition. This modified version designated as the prime movers M33 and M34
was designated as the cargo carrier T30E1. However, respectively. In January 1944, 209 M10A1 tank
with the decision to use unarmored, high speed, tractors destroyers also were converted to M35 prime movers for
as the companion vehicles for the heavy self-propelled the heavy artillery by removing the turret. All of these
artillery, production plans for the T30E1 were canceled. served as armored personnel carriers for the artillery
A similar fate befell the cargo carrier T31. This vehicle crews.
10