I see a lot of military what ifs in this thread and it occurred to me that the poor transport capacity of M2 bradleys which can only carry 6 troops, as opposed to the earlier m113 which could carry 10 could pose a very significant problem in a reforger (return of forces to germany) scenario. In this scenario there would be a ground war between the soviet union and NATO, and the US military would have to basically fedex all it's armor to europe.
This was, as I understand it, the main scenario the US military was planning for.
How could the US military accept a 5:3 increase in the number of APCs it would have to transport to europe in such a situation?
Just in desert storm they used 2,200 bradleys, which could carry 13,200 troops. It would only require 1,320 m113s. That's not even counting the fuel and spare parts, not to mention maintainers, plus it would require almost 4,000 extra crew. Then there's the cost. In desert storm that would have required 176 more C-5 flights just for the unsupported bradleys. The US military only bought 131 C-5s. Using all of the US military's airlift capacity, 279 C-17s (many would not have been available in the 80s, the c-17 being introduced in 1991) and 131 C-5s could only carry 1,492 per trip from the US to europe.
Why did the US military take such a large logistical burden when logistics was such an important factor in reforger?
One part of reforger was that much of the heavy materiel such as said APCs in Europe and one would just need to fly the men over, at least in the first wave.
A MASSIVE aspect you are leaving out is the impact of Military Sealift Command.
While the annual REFORGER exercises were good for training, and for show, they dont really give a good impression of how the US Military moves larger armored formations. That is by sea.
When you mention Gulf War I for instance, while many vehicles for VII Corps were brought in from the US by air, many of the troops simply met new vehicles which had been brought from forward storage locations such as Diego Garcia, by means of the large USNS Ro-Ro ships.
Since WW1 US military capabilities have been built on seaborne power projection, and since most scenarios were pretty sanguine about just how much of Central Germany would remain in NATO hands, that meant most reinforcements and follow on formations would need to arrive in France of England, either by air or port, and sea travel is WORLD more efficient and economical.
So For small bursts and rapid reaction forces air transport is a powerful tool, you ignore the fact that large deployments of heavy equipment from the Continental US, or judiciously placed forward depots, will almost always involve a primarily sea based route. Any forces sent in as firts responders to a shooting conflict in Germany would be a rear guard at best and a sacrificial ploy at worst, only by sea could large enough formations be brought over and sustained for a campaign of size and length, while the men could potentially be flown in, it would be a possibly needless strain on protecting supply routes.
When you have ships like the Bob Hope class which can carry 100 heavy tracked vehicles, and 900!!! other vehicles and a dozen of the ships can provide an Armored Division with all the vehicles and supplies for 4-6 weeks of combat, the additional APC's becomes relatively trivial, design the ship a bit bigger, stock them up, and position them around the globe.
I believe you're misinterpreting the separate roles of the m113 and the m2. They're completely different different vehicles with vastly different roles.
The m113, british fv432, and the Soviet btr series of vehicles are armoured personnel carriers. The best way to think of these is as a minibus that won't break down (with the occupants killed or maimed) if a shell explodes nearby. They are designed to ferry troops from point a to point b, before the troops get out and do the dirty work, before re embarking them and taking them to point c. They're essentially a "battlefield taxi", and typically lack the armament and armour to participate in combat themselves.
Vehicles such as the Bradley, Soviet BMP series, and British warrior are infantry fighting vehicles. These are a hybrid between tanks and apc's. Their role is not only acting as an armoured transport, but also providing local fire support for its unit (as opposed to an apc, which will usually back off while the infantry engage).
A comparison based off carrying capacity alone ignores the obvious advantage of having a miniature tank with a 20mm cannon and a few guided anti tank missiles to enhance the validity of your viewpoint. It really is a misnomer to see a 40% reduction in passenger capacity and automatically assume that's a problem without taking into account the bigger picture.