[.ca] Warrior Mechanised Combat Vehicle 1987-94 (ISBN 1855323796)

Which is better British Warrior of U.S. Bradley?:
I have always been curious about the British Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle, so I bought the Foss book and began to see why the British Army selected the Warrior over the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV). Foss explains that the British Army was involved with the BFV's development and didn't like what they saw and came up with their own vehicle that is simpler and with a lower profile. The Warrior has some features we could easily incorporate into our BFVs, if we would realize its an INFANTRY fighting vehicle not a wannabe-tank with gunnery driving training with the men in back as security guards. In contrast, the Warrior has always had bench seats to carry 7 men, has a low-pressure 30mm Rarden cannon so the infantry can have their heads out the top hatches to fire/see what's going on, while we tinkered with firing ports. What is amazing about Warrior is that it has rotating periscopes for the infantry in the back to see what is going on when "buttoned up" while in the BFV you are as blind as a bat. The Warrior has a full NBC protection system and even a toilet in the vehicle! If that were not enough Foss explains that the Warrior has a heater for meals and coffee/tea and a large power operated rear door and not a ramp--so the infantry in back can get themselves out quickly without having to beg the driver to open it like we do on the BFV. The British used CHOBHAM armor to applique to the outsides of their Warrior ICVs--this is the same stuff used to armor main battle tanks. When a warrior was hit accidentally by a tank gun round in the Gulf war, it glanced off doing only minor damage. When a tank round hit a BFV in the Gulf, it demolished the vehicle and killed/wounded the men inside. Reading Foss' excellent work you wonder why we don't put a rotating periscope in the BFV on the top troop hatch, replace the rear ramp with the large power door, put a decent NBC over-pressure/air filtration system in, install a troop commode, and apply REAL armor to the outsides to include the lighter M113A3s? Why not replace the BFV turret with a low-profile one-man turret with a 30mm autocannon using the same low-pressure ammo as the AH-64 helicopter uses and return our BFVs to Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles--to their original purpose as infantry transports? The faults of the Warrior are that it doesn't come with Forward Looking Infared (FLIR) or cannot fire on the move like the BFV, but must stop to shoot. This can be fixed by using a low-profile 25-30mm turret like the Desert Warrior improved version has that was selected by Kuwait over the BFV for its armed forces. Fire/Forget Anti-tank missiles like the Javelin would be easily attached to the turret outsides like the Desert Warrior has TOW ATGMs. These same things can apply to the BFV. So which vehicle is better, Bradley or Warrior? Clearly they both could be equally as good if the best aspects of each one were integrated in the other. Both vehicles need to remove their fuel tanks from inside the vehicle which could incinerate the men and place them in the rear outsides like the M113A3 does. Clearly the British Warrior has more of an infantry purpose in mind with more field craft, as the tubes for camouflage net sticks around the vehicle facilitate. They do not curse their infantry by permanently assigning them to vehicles where they get lazy (or worse get assigned to a 2-man turret and become wannabe tankers obsessed with BFV "gunnery") and lose their light infantry skills--infantry is infantry and can be attached to helicopters or vehicles or "yomp" on foot as required. When Foss describes the infantry actions on foot to secure some objectives during Desert Storm, it makes you wonder about the U.S. BFV mentality. I admire the British tactically-oriented approach and wish we would emulate it. My only fault with Foss is that he clearly misunderstands mobility issues having bought into the heavyist mentality that "bigger is better". Bigger is not better if it cannot get to the battlefield---one of the reasons why the British and U.S. Armies keep lighter AFVs like the FV 432 and M113A3 around. Foss never seens to mention/realize that the same technology that makes a Warrior fast could also make a FV 432 fast, like the U.S. Army has done to make the M113A3s keep up with the M1/M2s in the open desert. Other than this, buy this book and compare the Warrior design to the BFV and the Russian BMP-3 and BMD-3 (see Zaloga's works) and ponder on British successes with their vehicle-encouraged infantry mentality and the troubles the Russians had early on in Afghanistan and Chechnya when the vehicle eroded infantry capabilities.