Boin-ney, did I say it right?

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose linking the rebuttal offered wouldn't serve the point very well?  The army acknowledged moving the cans.....to make the bradley safer to crews, the entire point.  There are places on a bradley that you just don't want anything to be.  It's armor isn't it's strong point..it can;t take a hit from an enemy tank -anywhere-, and it has to carry the ammo regardless of how dangerous it is when that ammo gets hit.  Predictably, they remained accusations, the plan moved ahead as per congressional mandate. Now, that doesn't mean that there wasn't some behind the scenes nonsense going on, people padding their friends pockets, but the bit about ammo cans.....meh. That got fixated on because of their failure to make anything else stick. You're referring here, to politicians making career convenient allegations to a crowd. We don't carry those cans in the vehicle -at all- anymore. It's the tow missile storage that keeps you up at night, now. They're behind you against the walls and under you on the bench. I doubt it would have passed any of those tests had it carried the armament as it does now without the up-armor mods.

In what way would an audit find wrongdoing in any of this? You're talking about a weapon not living up to it's hype. The first bradleys definitely didn't live up to the hype (they still outperformed what they replaced). They exceeded it, in the end. No one expected it to perform like it has.