>but sir, it's a troop...carrier....

>but sir, it's a troop...carrier....

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >mech platoon leader walks into a room
    >slaps the man for thinking the loss of 2 riflemen in the vehicle would make a lick of difference in exchange for an autocannon and TOW missile
    >especially when their precious M113 was only carrying 8 dismounts anyways due to manpower shortages
    >M2 bradley is rushed into service quicker than usual

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What I don't get is why couldn't they just length the vehicle by a couple of feet to compensate for lost space and still be able to fit a full nine-man squad in it?

      Sure, that might add a couple extra tons but the Bradley's weight classification is almost equal to a WWII medium tank anyway so it's not much of a loss.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Turning radius, ground pressure, reduced number of vehicles that will fit on standard railcar or transport ship or C-17. Size envelope for American vehicles is determined by logistics.

        When that isn't a concern you end up with the Namer IFV

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Size envelope for American vehicles is determined by logistics.

          Oh yeah, kinda forgot about that part.

          You don't want 18 men in two IFVs when you can afford to have 18 men in 3 IFVs. Cramming men into a vehicle like that is how you lose a quarter of your infantry platoon to a single hit. Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles (UK) or countries that don't care about their men do this (Former USSR and Eastern Bloc)

          Yeah but then you'd need at least seven Bradleys (and extra men to crew them, and a lot more spare parts) to transport the entire platoon and you're in trouble if less than seven are available for any reason. It also means splitting up squads since you can only fit a single fireteam in them.

          >and still be able to fit a full nine-man squad in it?
          having a 7-man squad and a small vehicle is just a better compromise than a 9-man squad and a larger vehicle

          Bradleys can't even take seven men, just six.

          >Do they do this in real life?
          they did do it with battleships
          they used live animals to stand in for crew during nuke tests to see which parts of the ship would take lethal radiation

          I already knew about that and it sorta makes sense since our understanding of radiation was extremely limited at the time.

          But the outcome of catastrophic hull penetration in an AFV is pretty predictable, you wouldn't need to kill a bunch of sheep to figure that out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Bradleys can't even take seven men, just six.
            they originally could only take 6, but it was increased to 7 on the A1

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You don't want 18 men in two IFVs when you can afford to have 18 men in 3 IFVs. Cramming men into a vehicle like that is how you lose a quarter of your infantry platoon to a single hit. Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles (UK) or countries that don't care about their men do this (Former USSR and Eastern Bloc)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hey to be fair, it's not like the internal carrying capacity of a BMP actually matters

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you would actually have more survivability with fewer vehicles
          if 2 vehicles carrying 9 men each are both hit, you lose 2 men
          if 3 vehicles carrying 6 men each are all hit, you lose 3 men

          studies with 4 vs 5 man crews in WW2 support this
          where light tanks and medium tanks both suffered 1 casualty per hit, but since thats 25% of the crew in light tanks and only 20% of the crew in medium tanks, light tanks were proportionately suffering heavier losses

          if they could fit 9 men inside a bradley, they would
          but if they could give it MBT armor and make it weight 20 tons, they also would
          but these are just compromises they accept to meet their engineering limits

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No you actually want all your eggs in one basket

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              that is what they discovered
              casualties are constant regardless of crew size, so smaller crew sizes take a larger proportion of losses

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think you need to rethink about this. Start fresh and see if you come to the same conclusion. I think you won't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >. Start fresh and see if you come to the same conclusion
                thats the conclusion the army came to, light tank crews were disproportionately taking heavy casualties

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Situation A:
                You have 4 IFVs each holding 9 dismounts. One hits a mine and everyone dies 9 infantry dead plus crew, 1/4 of your infantry platoon.

                Situation B:
                You have 6 IFVs each holding 6 dismounts. One hits a mine and everyone dies 6 infantry dead plus crew, 1/6 of your infantry platoon.

                Your reasoning of 1 person always dying regardless of crew size, even if we accept it as true, is meaningless. Your supposing that every vehicle will he hit once and only once (I think because this is the only possible way your reasoning makes sense)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Your reasoning of 1 person always dying regardless of crew size, even if we accept it as true, is meaningless
                it was the average number of casualties per hit per vehicle
                which was true decades later in the gulf war

                > Your supposing that every vehicle will he hit once and only once (I think because this is the only possible way your reasoning makes sense)
                if vehicles are hit twice, then you would have the same outcome
                2 out of 9 crew are dead, a 22% loss
                but 2 out of 6 are lost in the smaller vehicle, a 33% loss

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                These casualty rates don't matter. It isn't 2/6 or 2/9 dead. They are both 2/36 dead. The total casualties is what matters.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                tank crew sizes are not the same as IFV dismount sizes
                reality is that study after study shows the optimal infantry squad size is 9-10, preferably 13-14 men, comprising two or three 4-man squads and one command element
                (only the USMC dares structure like the latter, and they pay for it by not fielding a good IFV that fits them all in one vehicle for best command and control)
                just about everyone else went with the 9-10 man squad, BUT to fit that into IFVs was unfeasible, so they cut it down to 7 or 8 men

                now, WHY is it unfeasible? strategic manoeuvre. beyond a certain size and weight, IFVs are either too big or heavy to transport easily by ship and rail.

                logistics, gentlemen. it all comes down to logistics.

                https://i.imgur.com/eYqv7rq.jpg

                What I don't get is why couldn't they just length the vehicle by a couple of feet to compensate for lost space and still be able to fit a full nine-man squad in it?

                Sure, that might add a couple extra tons but the Bradley's weight classification is almost equal to a WWII medium tank anyway so it's not much of a loss.

                >so it's not much of a loss.
                it turns out to be, in fact, quite a loss
                that's why just about every NATO IFV fielded today, tracked or wheeled, really has fewer dismount seating than optimal

                You don't want 18 men in two IFVs when you can afford to have 18 men in 3 IFVs. Cramming men into a vehicle like that is how you lose a quarter of your infantry platoon to a single hit. Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles (UK) or countries that don't care about their men do this (Former USSR and Eastern Bloc)

                >Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles
                >disregard the M113 and Stryker please
                idiot

                >Bradleys can't even take seven men, just six.
                they originally could only take 6, but it was increased to 7 on the A1

                >they originally could only take 6, but it was increased to 7 on the A1
                fricking P2W microtransaction horseshit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >and they pay for it by not fielding a good IFV that fits them all in one vehicle for best command and control

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >AAVP7A1
                >good IFV
                no

                >reality is that study after study shows the optimal infantry squad size is 9-10, preferably 13-14 men,
                studies after WW2 showed that the british and german 9-man squads were easier to command than the 12-man squads fielded by the US
                the limit of the number of individual elements a person can command at a time is 2, 3 can only be controlled for short periods of time
                so the US Army followed suit with the rest of the world to a 9-man squad that splits into 2 sections, the 3-section 12-man squad was only ever used as a single-element deathball

                >easier to command
                yes, and subsequently the increasing importance of networking in the 21st century has only intensified this
                effective span of control is thought to be only 2 elements under 1 commander now, which is part of why the latest USMC structure has an assistant squad leader
                BUT practicably speaking, the third squad was for attrition replacements

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >reality is that study after study shows the optimal infantry squad size is 9-10, preferably 13-14 men,
                studies after WW2 showed that the british and german 9-man squads were easier to command than the 12-man squads fielded by the US
                the limit of the number of individual elements a person can command at a time is 2, 3 can only be controlled for short periods of time
                so the US army followed suit with the rest of the world to a 9-man squad that splits into 2 sections, the 3-section 12-man squad was only ever used as a single-element deathball

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >words words words British/German 9 man squad
                Nobody cares.
                >Germany
                Lost.
                >Britain
                Would have lost.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bradley squads ARE nine men, they're just carried aboard two vehicles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thats after the reforms
                and even then, its standard practice to deploy undermanned rather than crossloading
                so 7-man squads arent unheard of

                the original cold war structure was 3 6-man, later 7, squads in 3 vehicles with a platoon HQ in the fourth

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >carried aboard two vehicles.
                yes, as I said, suboptimal

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Only poor countries that can't afford many vehicles
                >disregard the M113 and Stryker please
                >idiot
                Damn you're stupid

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you want some decent discussions on squad sizes see below:
                >https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/12r49kd/why_are_some_infantry_squads_big_and_others_small/
                >https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/ison99/what_is_the_strength_and_weakness_of_different/
                >https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/k0lw4s/the_best_squad/

                >reality is that study after study shows the optimal infantry squad size is 9-10, preferably 13-14 men, comprising two or three 4-man squads and one command element
                Akchually, the US Army has consistently done studies on this topic and has found that 11 people was the best squad size (1 leader + 2x5 fireteams) but they compromised to 9 people because they wanted a universal squad size to fit into all their vehicles. The US has always wanted two fireteams that mirror, each other in terms of people and equipment, however in real life the average squad will be down 20-30% from their full strength in people which results in the fireteam concept breaking down and the squad acting as one unit. A lot of countries realize that fireteams are a meme so they do the base of fire concept (one GPMG supported by everyone else) which goes back to what the Germans did in WW2.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Focusing on squad size is an error of scale in the first place. Platoon and fire team are the important levels.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You didn't read what I posted so try again

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I've read everything you posted years ago, probably before you were ever aware of the topic. I'm responding to the underlying argument of bigger squad (up to the sports team cap of ~15) = better by pointing out it's falsely optimized.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >2x5 fireteams
                isn't the 5th man supposed to be the attrition reserve?
                >fireteams are a meme
                it takes a lot of C3 to pull off so only the best armies can do it, but everyone has a manning problem now which will only get MUCH worse in a real war, so it's arguably unrealistic
                >so they do the base of fire concept (one GPMG supported by everyone else) which goes back to what the Germans did in WW2
                it more resembles late WW1 tactics now, with the squad MG resembling a Lewis gun and 40mm underbarrel "rifle grenades"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Did you know it's illegal for more than one person to be injured per damaged vehicle?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              for every vehicle with multiple casualties per vehicle, there were several vehicles with none
              the total average was 1 per vehicle

              but the more important takeaway is that crew size does not have bearing on crew casualties
              otherwise the numbers would have said 4 losses per light tank and 5 losses per medium tank, which is what people say would happen, which would have been a compelling reason to say smaller crews generate less casualties
              but they dont

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >smaller crews generate less casualties
                Never once have I heard anyone argue that, nor is that what's being argued here

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >vehicle holds 6 men
                >one time it was hit and everyone died
                >five other times it was hit and no one died
                >therefore, statistically speaking if it is hit you can expect exactly one man to die
                Averages are funny thing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >were you or a loved one injured during a fighting vehicle hit? you may be entitled to compensation! call 555-REFORMER for details

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This is the sort of logic that led to Russian units heavy in BMPs and other IFVs but lacking enough infantry in those vehicles in 2022. Its a battle taxi, its better to have as few as possible to get the troops to target location, if you're losing one to ambush you're probably losing all of them anyway.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Track are great but you are very limited with how far apart they can be and how long they can be.
        Too short and you get this issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rud4-CzWmA
        Too long and you can't turn.
        Too close together and it'll roll, too far apart hurts turning but not terribly it's mostly about making sure it fits on a truck, in a chopper, on a train ect.

        The ultimate Bradley upgrade that holds more dismounts, ammo and fuel is a crewless turret.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and still be able to fit a full nine-man squad in it?
        having a 7-man squad and a small vehicle is just a better compromise than a 9-man squad and a larger vehicle

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What I don't get is why couldn't they just length the vehicle by a couple of feet to compensate for lost space
        That would likely require an entire redesign. Plus the size was probably decided before hand to account for logistics like how many can fit on a HET or in a cargo aircraft or ship.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And that's why you're never gonna be a full bird colonel Burton, you butthurt homosexual

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moron here, what's going on at the end of the video? what the frick blew up like that? it doesn't look like an ammo explosion

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        smoke launcher went off

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        smoke grenades
        it's a propaganda video cut down to make it look like the bradley made the t-90 explode

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i've heard elsewhere on the board that it was a mission kill (optics destroyed or something) and was abandoned. is that what happened or did the t90 manage to limp away?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it was mission kill then abandoned and finished by a drone
            but the shills make it sound like the bradley destroyed the t-90
            it could still move but the crew panicked and ran away

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              fair enough. thanks anon

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Learn how to type homosexual.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              i've heard elsewhere on the board that it was a mission kill (optics destroyed or something) and was abandoned. is that what happened or did the t90 manage to limp away?

              Turret was spinning like a playground attraction, they slammed into a tree and bailed out.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Imagine being getting bullied so hard that you can't return fire

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The crews survived but the tank was definitely fricked

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You know why turrets spin, anon? Because the gunner is fricking dead and his corpse has collapsed over the controls and is jamming them full in one direction.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Are you fricking saying they have four people operating the t90?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The video shows only 2 exiting from what I recall.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The crews survived but the tank was definitely fricked

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                damage to equipment can't cause it?? also what if the crew member was "mission killed" as well. not dead but just really fricked up. i'd imagine there was crazy spalling in that box.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Damage to equipment would stop the turret from working. Not launching it into eternal spin

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Arguable. Depends on the programming of whatever computers (or design of mechanical system) control the rotation and the specific damage done. You've never removed the processor/controller on a piece of electronics and watched it repeat the last command indefinitely? I have.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You know why turrets spin, anon?
                They used chips from stolen washing machines.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                boy, he sure runs awfully spiritedly for a dead person

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >gunner is dead!
                >3 bail
                >T90 crew
                >3
                Why are Ukrainian dick riders so fricking DUMB.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The fact we have real world footage of something like this is crazy. homies really lacking in 4K

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah that tank got penned
                At the very least there must have been some nasty spalling in there to frick the gunner like that

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The gunner left with the commander and driver though. Maybe he was injured but there's no evidence of that on video.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's a bradley kill. Hut enough times to stun/killl the gunner
                You dobt need a turret toss to kill

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The crew survived in the sense that all three managed to abandon tank and run away from it. What happened to them afterwards is unknown, but seeing that they were stranded in the open with Ukie drones overhead and at least two Bradleys roaming about their chances weren't good.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Bro, if the crew panics and abandon the tank, the tank is worthless and loss the battle.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's such a weird cope. Same as when that guy posted the lost vehicles from the last 3 days and the ziggers shout UH THAT ONE WAS ABANDONED AND THEN DESTROYED BY A DRONE, BUT THEY COUNT IT AS DESTROYED TO RIG THEIR NUMBERS???
                As if an abandoned vehicle is any less of a loss to the army than a destroyed one

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Abandooner strikes again
                >Literally can't be killed
                >Just crews a new vehicle with more experience and zero loss to equipment
                >Babushkas bribe him with washing machines just for a chance to frick him as he strides triumphantly back to friendly lines
                >I'm abandooning!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                An completely intact and fully fuelled, armed and functional abandoned vehicle that is not recovered is worth absolutely the same to its owners as one that has everything above turret ring orbiting the moon.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              the crew in the turret were dead or at least incapacitated, turrets don't spin like that from the metal or electronics being damaged, just the meat. The turret face got penned by 25mm you collossal moronBlack personhomosexual, and the driver was so blind from the vision block being smashed into bits that he hit a massive tree dead in front of him, a bradley *did* kill that T-90, even if it was the first ever T-series not to explode like it was packed with hollywood pyrotechnics.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You can literally see 3 men exit the tank and run away at the end of the video. Ukraine still managed to destroy the tank and kill the fleeing crew at the end but saying the crew died during the Bradley attack is just plain wrong.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yep. a win is a win, whether it's a mobility, mission, or hard kill. dead tonk is dead.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >could still move but the crew panicked and ran away
              The crew correctly assessed that their tank was not in a condition capable of fighting or withdrawing and wisely got out of there the best way they could.
              If your optics are busted and your turret is spinning like a top you aren't going to fix anything.
              Give the crew some credit. They didn't "panic" they got a face full of HE and lost the engagement, but got away with their lives.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Crew bailed after the tank got stuck and turret mechanism failed causing the turret to spin uncontrollably.
            Don't know what happened to the crew after.

            Opting to bail rather than get ATGM'd is generally a preferable option for most crews.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Mission kill. The turret was out of control, optics gone, driver unable to navigate. The crew deserted and all but one were killed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's another video after a day or so passed. It's still there

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >best tank in the world loses to bradley and some toy drones
          ringing endorsement of puccian military industry

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it was killed. the crew abandoned it and something was fricked up with the turret and it was locked into a spin until it hit a tree.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The best part is when it crashes into a tree while doing the armata turret spin.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Full video shows the tank being abandoned soon after.

          i've heard elsewhere on the board that it was a mission kill (optics destroyed or something) and was abandoned. is that what happened or did the t90 manage to limp away?

          You heard right. The smoke cans were likely detonadlted by fire from the Bradley

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      tis but a scratch

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      These hits look so cool

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the tank was disabled and crashed into a tree where the crew abandoned it and was then properly destroyed by a Ukrainian attack drone. strange that the whole video is not shown

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The video was posted Black person, read the thread

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The whole video is too lorge without shit compression

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >umm, actually a $200 drone destroyed our best mbt
        Strange how you think the Bradley+drone combo mitigates how embarrassing the lost of the T-90 is.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Less embarassing than an MBT so useless it can't even show up at the front. In that respect, even the T62 is light years ahead of the Abrams.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this clip single handedly made the movie Pentagon Wars anachronistic

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        no not really. the point of pentagon wars is that the bradley is a glass cannon and if you carry troops they'll die if someone farts in its general direction.
        >a trooper carrier that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicous to do reconnaissance, and with less armor than a snowblower, but with enough ammo to take down half of DC

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's less of a glass canon than any APC we were using during or since. nowadays the actual size of a vehicle isn't as relevant either due to modern FCS systems & drone recon, even the russians are realizing this, hence why the t14 is so huge.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you now remember the bradley that was hit by a T-72 and drove away

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can see the hole, you could slide into. It didn't hit something vital but that doesn't mean a Bradley can endure a MBT APCR shell

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >that doesn't mean a Bradley can endure a MBT APCR shell
              But it did.
              Also, nobody uses APCR you idiot

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >nobody uses APCR you idiot
                >russian manufacturing deteriorates to the point where the 5 remaining t72s are forced to use ww2 era APCR instead of APDS

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can see the hole, you could slide into. It didn't hit something vital but that doesn't mean a Bradley can endure a MBT APCR shell

            This is like saying "I am bulletproof" and getting shot and not dying because it misses vital organs and then claiming "See? I am bulletproof!"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no, the point of the pentagon wars is to be bullshit propaganda about burton.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          This is like saying "I am bulletproof" and getting shot and not dying because it misses vital organs and then claiming "See? I am bulletproof!"

          This is like saying "a .45 would literally rip you in half" and shooting someone in the arm and then complaining "why were they able to survive, I depleted their healthbar, high power pistol beats unarmored wtf"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that the Bradley has a good combat record doesn't change the fact that they were tasked with designing a new APC and built a light tank instead

      smoke grenades
      it's a propaganda video cut down to make it look like the bradley made the t-90 explode

      i've heard elsewhere on the board that it was a mission kill (optics destroyed or something) and was abandoned. is that what happened or did the t90 manage to limp away?

      it was mission kill then abandoned and finished by a drone
      but the shills make it sound like the bradley destroyed the t-90
      it could still move but the crew panicked and ran away

      The crews survived but the tank was definitely fricked

      >THE BRADLEYS KILLED IT
      >NO THE DRONE KILLED IT
      >THEY DIDN'T EVEN PENETRATE
      >THEY BRADLEY HAD HELP
      combined arms baby

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        CAS kino

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How would have the Burton cope carrier have fared in this situation?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this would be suicidal against any modern tank that isn't Russia.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It would also be suicidal against Russians, if they decided to follow their own doctrine.
        Tank platoon is at least 3-4 vehicles. Where are they?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Did the Bradley’s get lucky and the the T-90 crew were looking away, or are the Russian t-90s coming out without like thermals or something? Or is it the poorly trained crews?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The t-90 shot at but missed the first Bradley. They only managed that one shot, though, for some reason. The turret spinning out of control may have prevented them from getting any more shots out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Shitty optics, poor situational awareness, bad training, bad tank design, take your pick. Whatever the case the tank crew got ambushed, failed to put any kind of meaningful resistance, then proceeded to get peppered by the bradleys until their turret malfunctioned and their optics likely got shot to shit. The crew probably panicked as soon they started getting shot at and tried to reverse out of there instead of putting up a fight, which just lead to them getting shot at even more until they lost the ability to fight back.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This footage should be legally have to be shown before Pentagon Wars.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you will never experience an adrenaline dump like this. that shit has to be otherwordly

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He's cute

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          he is. and his ratatata is in the top 100%. dont frick with him.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Top 100%
            Cute boys are so silly

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              dont be gay

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      damn the russkies never had a fricking chance during the cold war

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Has a person ever been so wrong about something to the point that they cause a movie to be made about it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Like the civil war?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Aaaannnnd there's the Redditor transplant

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >ever been so wrong about something to the point that they cause a movie

      Schindler's List
      literally everything by Michael Moore
      Any vampire move. Don't believe them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Any vampire move. Don't believe them.
        nah theyre real bro, my uncle was one. he used to sneak into my room at night and nibble on my neck when he thought i was sleeping

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Any vampire move.
        >Don't believe them
        The Vampires?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Any vampire move. Don't believe them.
        Shriveled undead fingers typed this post.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Never.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      how does this relate to bradley, i didnt watched pentagon wars movie
      t. poor fricking infantry enjoyer

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >i didnt watched pentagon wars movie
        go watching it then

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Basically, a colonel who thought that a jet with two cannons, no radar, and no missiles would be the best fighter the US Air Force could possibly produce got really butthurt that his design was rejected and came up with something called the ‘Joint Live Fire Test Program’ where all the branches would preform total destruction tests on their newest equipment. The Navy and Air Force laughed him out of the room for being an idiot but the Army was willing to play ball with the Bradley if they could run the test, so they began doing things like putting water in oil tanks and hitting it with an auto cannon to see where or if the water would leak, or sand into ammo bins then hitting it with an rpg to see which were ruptured, but this wasn’t enough for the colonel. He wanted a total destruction test and demanded they do shit like fire a 120mm tank rounds at the Bradley which just annoyed the Army, they knew it couldn’t survive that because it hadn’t been designed too, and every time they tried to do a useful test he screeched about how they were sabotaging his test program. Eventually the Army realized he was still seething about his design being rejected and pushed the guy into retirement, but the seethe was not done so he wrote a book called The Pentagon Wars which through a combination of stupidity, lying, and misrepresentation the Bradley program was a debacle, stuff like how aluminum armor was completely inadequate (leaving out that the M117 which he lauded also had aluminum armor), or that they were asked to design a troop carrier and through a process of mission creep and corruption ended up with a light tank, but never acknowledging the difference between an APC and an IFV, the existence of the BMP, or that it was always supposed to have an armed turret. The Bradley he asserted was a living example of Pentagon corruption, a horribly compromised vehicle that would put thousands of lives at risk if it ever went into action, despite it not happening

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not to mention it doesnt strictly have aluminum armor
          It has a pair of high-hardness steel plates above its aluminum Hull to abrade projectiles, giving it protection superior to the M113
          Making it a composite steel-air- aluminium armor

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >bigger M113 with more armor, advanced electronics and a turret with an autocannon BAD
          >M113 GOOD
          I hate reformer morons so God damn much it's unreal. The fact that there morons aren't "disappeared" makes me question the beneficts of democracy and free speech

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >bigger M113 with more armor, advanced electronics and a turret with an autocannon BAD
          >M113 GOOD
          I hate reformer morons so God damn much it's unreal. The fact that there morons aren't "disappeared" makes me question the beneficts of democracy and free speech

          Bradley survived as an example but essentially more realism was required in the procurement process. Irrelevant though, what was really happening was more information was available due to technology, osint if you will, and the various stages of needs assessment to military engagement with those materials produced had to be made more efficient. The misstep with the Bradley still caused more efficiency in the process. Ralph Nader killed the Corvair, a perfectly fine, even highly innovative and practical, automobile, for no good reason whatsoever, thus eventually having an effect on the Big 3's vulnerability to shitboxes like the 1978 Corolla or the like. You're very literally better off in a Pinto with the metal filler neck, because Nader's safety reforms caused a social change which produced the Pinto, the superior example in all ways to all Japanese import contemporaries. The process of taking conceptual needs like moving people resulted in a great car with a total disconnect to insurance liability and the like. Not even the Supercars like a 1968 Hurst Olds can get away with that. Which btw is an American land yacht that handily defeats any contemporary from Europe on the modenr Nurburgring. It was produced by 1968 with suspension and power technology that Yuropoors didn't hvae because they didnt have Nader, who kilt the Corvair. Bradley survived but the MIC got more efficient too. If you're a Russian muslim chinese man from india working for the cartels in nigeria, this is depressing frickign news.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're a Russian muslim chinese man from india working for the cartels in nigeria, this is depressing frickign news.
            Did the Chat bot have a stroke?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >soldier says

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that the Bradley has a good combat record doesn't change the fact that they were tasked with designing a new APC and built a light tank instead

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >doesn't change the fact that they were tasked with designing a new APC
      they were tasked to build an IFV in the first place

      >and built a light tank instead
      the light tank role was a seperate project and cancelled
      the M2 was simply modified into the M3 cavalry vehicle to quickly fill the empty role and proved effective in that role anyways

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Except the Bradley was designed as an IFV not an APC. Basically just an answer to soviet BMP

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. Colonel James Burton

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ah yes, that's why most IFV's like the Marder, Warrior, BMP, Type 89, Strv 9040, etc. all share similar armaments to the Bradley of having an autocannon + ATGM. That's how fricking IFV's work. They're meant to transport troops to a battlefield and then STAY WITH THE TROOPS to support them, as opposed to an APC that will usually GTFO after dropping the troops off because the APC doesn't have the armor or armament to fulfill a support role.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Except any non moronic squad leader will make the APC stay to provide MG fire and draw enemy fire from his squishy meaty troops. Even a soft skinned vehicle will probably hang around during assault if it has an MG.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And then fricking DIE you stupid mong
          the whole point of tanks and IFVs having thicker armour is so that they can survive being shot at
          or did you think the enemy will happily sit there and be hosed without doing anything to remedy the situation?
          how old are you? you have to be 18 to post here

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bradley would be a fantastic light tank.
    Instead it's a very good light tank and a bad APC fused into one.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What makes it a bad APC?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But it's not a tank, not an APC either

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >gets his opinions straight from pentagon wars
      ISHYGDDT
      also see: any other IFV ever

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >mentions every kind of vehicle except what it actually is, which is an ifv
      Absolute fricking state lmfao

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not to start
    >REEEEEEEEEEE NO GUTOOBERZ!!!!
    ...but Laserpig's video on the Bradley Wars bulljob is a great TLDR catchup on the subject.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      laserpig is an actual moron who thought a honda jazz made more TORQUE than a t-72, which someone with a grade 10 education would understand that 10 honda jazz engines designed to move a 1 tonne vehicle wouldn't come close to that of an engine moving a 40+ tonne one

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >honda jazz made more TORQUE than a t-72

        Only in reverse.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're an actual moron who is too fricking stupid to extract spoonfed information from a video.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Laserpig is a literal homosexual

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but Burton is a bigger homosexual

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That’s nice

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So are all russian soldiers thanks to their hazing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Daddy's dead and he's not coming back Sweaty
        >Yaaaaaaaaa! LOL

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Man i fully support Ukraine but lazerpig is a delusional homosexual and his cringe spaz fest a few months ago should have shaken you out of any support for him.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            he used to make pretty decent videos. What happened? Now he mentions he's a homosexual in every video

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Does he? The F-117 video was nice.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              ziggers cope and seethe everytime he's mentioned because he shat on their shitty tanks

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why does he have to mention he's a gay, tho? Like damn, dude, stfu and talk about the subject and not how you love go suck wieners

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Fricking laserpig won't shut up about sucking dicks! wieners DICKS! HE WOn't Shut up about Dicks! Big hard throbbing dicks! Veiny dicks spurting hot cum in my Mouth, mean his mouth! That's all his videos Are! Don't make me post a sixth reply about how I HATE his videos because he makes me think about dicks! wieners DICKS! HE WOn't Shut up about Dicks! Big hard throbbing dicks! Veiny dicks spurting hot cum in my Mouth, mean his mouth! Im so fricking tired of that homosexual and his fat girthy wiener and...

                Anon, calm down.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lower male bodycount than the average mobik

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm sorry Bradley
    Instead of laughing at this clip, I should have asked "if the idea was so shit, why does every single other country also make their own IFVs?"

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Disregard revisionism based on a biased account by a butthurt chair force officer.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Did you serve?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    no pen because they were shooting at the turret you tard, if you look closely they were aiming at the optics and main gun because they knew they couldn't fight a t90 one on one.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    combat by definition is something you shouldn't be doing but have to anyway. War even more so .

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reformer-posting should be a bannable offense

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, because then we wouldn’t be able to call them moronic.
      Instead there should be a banner on their posts stating something along the lines of “I AM A moronic REFORMER. LAUGH AT ME BEING A moron”

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    LOL Hollywood gays in 80s had no clue Bradley M2 with just HE belt would still be effective vs T-72B variant made in 2020s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This was from the 90's. After Bradleys got more tank kills athan Abrams in Desert Storm

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what moron greenlit the movie?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >what moron greenlit the movie?
          Probably some journalist/media types who had spent all the 1980's listening to the Reformers and thinking they sounded correct and that believing what they said made them smart. Acknowledging that Gulf War proved the Reformers wrong might mean that they might feel not smart.

          It's a really long read but I would suggest at least skimming the Reformers oriented parts of Rise of the Iron Majors. Burton is too small time to get a mention himself, but it covers a lot about how the Reformers got the influence they did (spoiler: it was people wanting a way to justify cutting defense spending without looking like they were weak on defense).
          https://etd.auburn.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Wasn't this in a partially Russian controlled former settlement?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Burton is an idiot and doesn’t understand what an ifv is. For him it is either a tank or an apc, so to him the bradley is some unholy abomination. His doctrines were out of date.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      how did he become a colonel working in military procurement is beyond me. one would imagine those kinds of people would know any better, certainly more than the pompous aristocrats playing with tiny tanks in the war room

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The only way I can explain it is that Burton’s prime is 1955 onwards, so he was stuck in that Korean war and WWIi mindset and did ‘t want to advance past that. Whenever there is a doctrine change, there are always debates and fighte over it and Burton was on the side against change.

        The bradley is a bad apc, and a terrible tank, ergo it is terrible. But it is a top notch IFV but he can’t grasp an IFV.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    there needs to be a pentagon wars sequal where it's revealed that the generals and the col. knew what they were doing and were actually not corrupt and the previous movie was all in burtons head as he insists the BLR load the bradley with a combat load of fuel and ammo (again) so they can watch it die from a TOW missile again

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Comedies kinda sucks now so this will never happen

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What's that little goat doing there?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's a sheep. The movie has a part where they want to use sheep in a live fire test so they have a bit about "Sheep Specs" and it's reference to that

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's obviously a goat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >stuffing a bunch of sheep inside a Bradley and then blowing it up so they can see what happens to them

          Do they do this in real life?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Do they do this in real life?
            they did do it with battleships
            they used live animals to stand in for crew during nuke tests to see which parts of the ship would take lethal radiation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Typically human bodies donated for research are used for real tests. so if you know someone who donated their body for science there is not a insignificant chance they were used in a weapons test.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hope Burton is tracked down and forced to apologise after being so thoroughly outed in the declassified files as being a butthurt c**t. I hope they apologise for Pentagon Wars and everyone involved pays back the money they made off Burtons lies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      dude, he's like 90 or something. if he's not dead you'll probably never get nothing from him.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Well, Colonel, the Russians have this thing called a BMP that is a trooper carrier AND light tank rolled into one, and if our boys in unarmed battle taxis run into one, they'll be fricking mincemeat. That's why we asked you to make an IFV, get with the program.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the movie frames it like the US "invented" the IFV concept then and there, and that they're inherently stupid. except now they're the backbone of most mechanized formations & are used by every serious military in the world.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That’s because it’s based heavily on Burtons book of Butthurt. All the files got declassified from the time and it utterly btfos Burtons story.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What did the declassified docs say?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The movie says the project cost 14B, way over budget
            In reality, they gave it a budget of 12B and it only cost 8B, several billion under

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The movie says
              At this point it's faster if we ask "what did the movie get RIGHT?"
              >if any at all

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                executive meddling did mess up some parts of the bradley, but to no ones surprise the movie actually glosses over it
                the brad was expected to have the ability to fight in a nuclear wasteland, which meant the crew had to be able to fight while buttoned so firing ports were provided
                so they made a special M16 carbine with a shorter barrel and no stock that fit inside a cramped IFV interior

                the resulting firing port weapon had a much higher rate of fire to compensate for how short it was, so you can actually land hits
                but this also meant it was crazy impractical if it was used outside the vehicle so it had to be secured to the firing port at all times and would result in hearing loss if fired inside an enclosed space

                it was of questionable practicality and added yet another gun to the vehicle, and was eventually rendered useless by the extra armor packages that block the firing ports anyways
                modern M2s only keep the rear-hatch firing ports for suppressing the rear while dismounting but all the side ports have been sealed shut

                this was a legitimate problem that the movie doesnt really focus on in favor of harping on the autocannon

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Colt tested some sort of buffer on the XM231 designed to bring down the rate of fire to about the level of the old M3 Grease Gun but for some reason this wasn't included on production models. The magazines were to be loaded with tracers but with a cyclic rate of about 1,200 rounds per minute the magazine is emptied in under two seconds. So chances are you would never be able to walk the tracers onto the target before you need to reload.
                All in all it was probably the most moronic military variant of the AR-15 devised only beaten by some abominations civilians put together because they can.
                In Iraq it was sometimes used as an emergency weapon by Bradley crew members who didn't have a M4 carbine. Arguably better than the M9 pistol if some crazy bastard with explosives is trying throw himself under your hull. Since the barrel twist was designed to stabilize the old M193/196 cartridges and not newer stuff bullets will go off in whatever direction they feel like after about 50 yards or so. Not that you'd hit anything at 50 yards anyway since it has no sights.
                How did the movie slander the chain gun? The 25mm M242 and the 25mm Oerlikon KBA were two of the best things to come out of the Army's whole MICV saga. The Brits would have better off if they had put the M242 on the Warrior instead of the 30mm RARDEN.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The following:
          >Bradley project cost 14billon
          It’s cost 8 but was planned for 12 so came 4 billion under the estimated cost

          >Army had to be forced into the live firing testing by congress
          In reality Burton conceived the tests with Sprey and put it to the army, navy and airforce. The army were the only branch to agree the other 2 said the idea was moronic

          >Bradley didn’t originally have a turret
          It did because they wanted an IFV like the Russian BMP but better

          >Army fricked with the tests to hide Bradley problems
          This bit really shows how little Burton knew about the project and its purpose or why they conduct tests in the manner they do.

          Burton wanted the Bradley to be repeatedly tested against anti-tank munitions which after the first one the army said no. Burton cried foul while the army explained the Bradley was only intended to face infantry based weapons or other IFVs its not a tank. Burton also shows 0 clue about how tanks work. Also it’s a waste as you’d just wreck a Bradley to prove the Bradley couldn’t do something it was never intended to do in the first place.

          In the tests the army filled fuel tanks with water and ammunition with sand to see the effect of munitions on the Bradley. Burton cried foul even when the army explained this saved money. The idea is to see which tanks/ammo storage is hit when penetrated and how it can improve. It’s not a test to see how big a fireball it makes.

          >Burton exposed the corruption
          There was no corruption if anything the entire Bradley project is a great example of procurement and testing working as intended. It would have saved more money had Burton not got involved to begin with.

          Burton then claims he was forced into retirement. In actuality he cried foul when the designers moved water tanks inside so if the Bradley was penetrated the water tanks would help douse fires allowing soldiers to escape. Burton basically said that was cheating.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's kinda funny how much of the buy in to Pentagon War hinges almost entirely on normie boomers not knowing what an IFV is, due to them
      not having seen any in the WW2 or Vietnam War movies they'd watched. Since it's easier to write off an unfamiliar concept as being inherently dumb, and it feels safer to do that if you don't have to ponder the implications of the Warsaw Pact having tens of thousands of BMP's.

      Still a pretty funny movie. Just think of it as existing in an alternate universe fiction.

      Did the Bradley’s get lucky and the the T-90 crew were looking away, or are the Russian t-90s coming out without like thermals or something? Or is it the poorly trained crews?

      >Did the Bradley’s get lucky and the the T-90 crew were looking away, or are the Russian t-90s coming out without like thermals or something? Or is it the poorly trained crews?
      Keep in mind that the Ukies had a friendly recon drone flying overhead. It's operators were probably freaking out like hell trying to warn the Bradley's that there was a Russian tank there, and where it was relative to them. That potentially saved the Bradley crew a few critical seconds in target acquisition time and let them open up on the T-90 first with everything they had. Which seems to have been enough to blind/knock out its optics.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the movie would make way more sense if it was about the MBT-70 instead of the bradley

        >originally a joint program with west germany to make a new MBT
        >argue about every detail
        >implement new and untested technology in every facet of the the design
        >cant even decide who would make what parts
        >couldnt even decide what angle the blueprints should be viewed at
        >initial price tag of 100M ends up at 300M
        >end up with a vehicle that gives the driver nausea and armor that was outdated before the design is even produced
        >scrapped in favor of the M1 abrams with virtually no contribution to the army other than recycling its APFSDS round for the 105mm gun

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They interviewed driver afterwards. He claimed they knew the T-90 was there as another Bradley had already engaged it and alluded to "it not going well" for them. Supposedly AP rounds had a failure and he claims they swapped to HE and due to video games knew where to aim to hit the optics.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, given how small the driver view port and optics are, the Bradleys are just extremely lucky. They should've died by all accounts, the Ukrainian crew said themselves it was an "oh were fricked" moment

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's the argument of first-shot though, aka he who shoots first is statistically the one going to win.

      That's not a 1-for-1 use in this case, but imagine as a crew member you start getting pelted with 25mm across your hull, and in such a small tank like the T-90 being deafened and disoriented as your commander is screaming orders at you that you can't even begin to hear.

      Things change when you get shot at.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't it the bog standard tactic to button up a tank to buy time for a real anti armor attack of some kind? So yeah it was an oh shit moment but the Ukies rose to the challenge and did not run in fear and came out on top.

      >Training and morale will overcome a bad tactical situation

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If that T90 crew had been well trained both those Bradleys would have been fricked. As it was, they panicked long enough to get their optics shredded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        if the russian army had been well trained they would have won already. but that's just the cards you get when you build your army out of a mafia state.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't it the bog standard tactic to button up a tank to buy time for a real anti armor attack of some kind? So yeah it was an oh shit moment but the Ukies rose to the challenge and did not run in fear and came out on top.

        >Training and morale will overcome a bad tactical situation

        There's the argument of first-shot though, aka he who shoots first is statistically the one going to win.

        That's not a 1-for-1 use in this case, but imagine as a crew member you start getting pelted with 25mm across your hull, and in such a small tank like the T-90 being deafened and disoriented as your commander is screaming orders at you that you can't even begin to hear.

        Things change when you get shot at.

        the real way it works is
        >oh frick i'm getting shot at
        >"bravo 2-1 this is bravo 2-2, we're being shot at, can you hit that fricker?"
        >shooting stops
        >"bravo 2-2 this is bravo 2-1, we got him."
        >"thanks for the assist 2-1"

        except this requires you to not be russian. note how the ukies basically did this - there were two bradleys involved in the great t-90 hunt.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    watch the full video, the t-90m ends up having it's turret fricked up, continually spinning 360 degrees before they hit a tree & the crew abandons it. it gets blown up by an FPV drone soon after.
    none of us know the situation surrounding these events - it's possible the two bradleys were just what they had on hand or were surprised by the tank while travelling.
    but i like how we're watching a bradley disable russia's best tank in service right now at close range, coming out unscathed, and finding a way to shit on the ukies for it.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The Pentagon Wars
    I've never heard of this flick until this thread, looked it up it looks pretty good. Worth renting?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's funny, but knowing the real truth behind it ruins it. better watch it now and then read about burton and the reformers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sounds good bro I'll check em out thnx

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes Prime Minister was a lot closer to reality

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          absolutely not
          liberal disarmament claptrap

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it has its moments
            You have to remember Bernard is not a defence expert, he's just a bureaucrat who heard some rumours

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I don't care
              you have to remember the writers wrote it that way in order to push their liberal agendas

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I got Gell-Mann effected by him fairly hard after a couple of his naval videos. Quite a few people I know that focus on areas he's covered have reported similar things, which makes me conclude he's good at making it seem like he understands more than he does.

                Also, while I'm pretty tolerant of tangents (my favorite critic is Mauler, for perspective), LP can go off in what seems to be a completely random direction for half the video that has essentially no fricking relevance to the topic at hand. Doesn't stop that part from being entertaining, but again, Gell-Mann effect.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Gell-Mann effect
                aha
                so that's the name
                I just know it as
                >that thing Michael Crichton said which is why I don't read anything any more
                my trade is finance and I don't read a single word of financial opinion, I only take the solid numbers and then I make my own assessment and decisions.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know how many reds infiltrated the BBC but in America, Hollywood was/is so full of them that every movie portrayed a war against the Soviets as a near certain defeat.
          Even Red dawn is ludicrous when you think about it. I understand the premise was set for Soviet advantage. But the idea they could split the country in half along the rocky mountains is laughable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >war against the Soviets as a near certain defeat
            my headcanon is that when war flicks do this it is to inspire the populace to be steadfast in face of a "superior" opponent that threatens their very existence instead of wanking the sovshits.
            meaning it plays more into themes of the independence war.
            also scenarios of an america under attack and their desperate struggle to fight off the invaders is absolute kino and i wish more games, movies and shows would explore it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >my headcanon is that when war flicks do this it is to inspire the populace to be steadfast in face of a "superior" opponent that threatens their very existence instead of wanking the sovshits.
              The Soviets were spending millions of dollars every year to buy off Hollywood writers guilds. The idea was to make the prospect of war so hopeless that we take whatever deal they were willing to give us.
              There's still artifacts of this left in our culture. Nuclear winter? Absolute nonsense. No basis in reality. Fallout? Yeah it's not pleasant but you're population isn't going to turn into mutants, they'll just have elevated rates of leukemia and thyroid cancer.
              >also scenarios of an america under attack and their desperate struggle to fight off the invaders is absolute kino and i wish more games, movies and shows would explore it.
              Red dawn didn't even end with a proper American victory. The monolog at the end just ambiguously said
              >the war ended, the way all wars do
              For all we know the Soviets were able to negotiate an end to the war by extracting a massive grain tribute from us each year and our permission to do as they pleased with Europe and China.
              We didn't even get a payoff of a retaliation on the Soviets. Just the monument at the end implying the USA was somewhat sovereign

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >spending millions
                To buy billions. Is this the power of communism?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Millions used to be a lot of money in the 70s. But yeah. They ran into too many problems trying to directly influence actors and directors in the 40s and 50s. But they found out if they took over the writers unions they could subtly influence films to make war seem too costly and ghastly, while still portraying the Americans as the "good guys" so no politicians bothered investigating it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              KINOOOO

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Red Dawn was written by John Milius who is /k/ as a filmaker could get.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is pretty funny. I enjoyed it. The entire basis of it being one tard with a stupid cause doesn't detract from the humor.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >renting

      The whole thing id on youtube

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      just remember that in reality it's totally, completely and utterly wrong

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Watch it, laugh, then believe the opposite of everything the movie said.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        its particularly hilarious that they criticize its armor, when its actually much more armored than the M113 its replacing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the drama around the movie is funnier than the actual events of it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. its funny, no need to rent it, its freely available on youtube. It is of course a comedy and not a documentary and many (otherwise correct) Bradly enjoys forget this simple fact.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Did someone say carrier?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Man, I want one to drive around. That or that one Italian tankette.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >smol
      >fast
      >cheap
      >well-armed (infantry shouldn't be fighting tanks anyway)
      >open-topped so easier to pick up bawds
      Let me guess: you NEED more?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >smaller
        >faster
        >cheaper
        >equally as well armed
        >has a canvas roof

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i think this is a sexier jeep tbh. doesn't have the cachet though.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >can't fight here
    >why not?
    >it's not in the manual

    Go be moronic elsewhere.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      out of warranty now, your SOL sonny

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >heh ... Bradley cannot win an entire war alone... therefore it is le shit

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    While morons are spamming this video and acting like HE is going to pen a MBT there are also morons claiming that the tank wouldn't be damaged or that the Bradley is shit.
    It was the top tank killer of the Gulf War, if you have more recent performance data please share.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nice try, Satan. You won't get any data out of me.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do ukie Brads not come with TOWs?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they absolutely do, but the bradley was driving too fast to deploy the tows here, and the range was likely too short for an accurate shot. they probably figured it wasn't worth it to sit still & make themselves an easier target - worked out for them in the end.

      [...]

      lmao dude there is nothing special in a tow that would need a degree of secrecy like that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bullshit, any soldier desperate enough to hose down a MBT tank to death in an "oh shit" moment would try to fire the anything else they had that could actually kill the tank.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          i don't think you understand, the bradley mechanically cannot fire its TOW while moving that fast. watch the zoomed out footage, the bradley is driving perpendicular to the tank, and they're literally within 100 meters of each other (point-blank for armored engagements).
          to fire their TOW they'd have to stop right in front of the T-90m, which would probably have been a bad idea.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Too close, TOW arming range is 90 meters.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        65

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Your sad pathetic attempt to communicate as an intelligent human being must be as depressing t9 bear as it is shameful to behold.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>t9

      You stupid hoholsisters for the Ukraine can't even type good. Sad.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Oh, are we still on the “Ukes are selling all their weapons on the black market” schizophrenia?

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Burton wanted Namer-like protection but light
    which simply isn't possible

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    alright, fess up. how many of you only know about this movie because of the pig?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Xir's right you know

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Arty? HMG at an angle?

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there anywhere I can get an unbiased take on what the Ukies think of the Bradley? I know it's generally well-liked, but it does have issues with Slav winters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If the wheeled vehicle was also going 60km/h, it would have cleared that gap just fine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I can't seem to find it, does anyone have that photo of the Stryker that attempted this? It wasn't pretty

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yes because potholes behave better the faster ur moving

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          technically yes but you wouldnt want to try it irl: https://youtu.be/0vFxKFOgZ-8[embed]

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The vast majority of reports about the Bradley
    may we see them?

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    moron, every Ukrainian account I've seen on the Bradleys says that they're fricking fantastic. They love those things more than their own mothers.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Was The Pentagon Wars a realistic movie?

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    NTA but
    Someone else would have made a video eventually, and too much diversity is a weakness.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Someone else would have made a video eventually
      yeah and russia will have better tanks "eventually" but that doesn't help them very much right now, does it?

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    which modern countries still subscribes to the idea that infantry are the main source of firepower and that AFVs and artillery/missiles are the ones supporting infantry, not the other way around?

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Modern warfare is all mechanized warfare, and thus APCs are an outdated concept and IFVs (Bradleys) are superior.

    APCs and infantry oriented armies are a relic of a bygone era.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're thinking of motorized

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Somehow the XM1206 infantry carrier vehicle planned for the Future Combat Systems program forever ago now was supposed to carry a full 9 man squad in addition to the crew. Maybe this was unrealistic but with unmanned turrets I don't see why it has to be.
    The KF41 Lynx that has been offered for OMFV can carry 8 men in back but for some reason the US Army only wants OMFV to carry 6 and they seem to have also wanted some other changes, some good and some more questionable.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >some other changes, some good and some more questionable
      Such as?
      >with unmanned turrets I don't see why it has to be
      Army hates unmanned turrets
      Still easy to disable

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The new turret is an improvement in some ways but it has a taller profile than what would be ideal for reasons I don't know. The ATGM launchers method of switching to a firing position seems overly complicated.
      I think both designs downselected for OMFV use unmanned turrets but I will double check.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just want to say that Pentagon Wars is a good comedy with one of my favorite sequence of scenes in movies (the development process one), being an engineer myself.
    Discovering it's based on entirely wrong premises was a bit saddening, but the movie itself is still solid. It should be remade with fictional vehicles and characters just not to create confusion, but then again, much like with The Death of Stalin, History of the World Part I, Blackadder, or Forrest Gump, nobody should take comedy as a source for historical informations.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Death of Stalin
      is close enough to original events though to forgive the artistic liberties which were taken
      >t. lmao there's no way this happened
      >googles
      >well shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Death of Stalin isn't close enough, it's a strong caricature of stalinism, where everything is highly exaggerated and timeline is compressed with lot of anachronism. Not to say insane shit didn't happened of course (lol Lysenko).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It isn't full of blatant lies, hence like the other anon says - "is close enough to original events though to forgive the artistic liberties which were taken". You shouldn't treat it as a documentary, but it isn't outright ruined by the lies

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The movie invented a massacre in East Germany.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I certainly don't believe Khruschev "was kinda funny lookin" or fricking Molotov was like a barmy old English gramps or Stalin died laughing at a shitpost written by a hot pianist (for all we know...) or his daughter is a rather wet English girl

          but I hadn't known ANYTHING AT ALL about Stalin's death before watching the movie and googling the facts afterwards, I was impressed by what was ludicrously accurate about it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            khruschev was indeed funny looking. he was portly, bald and short, had a short temper and the education and etiquette of a coal miner. he reminds me of my grandpa. only that his fits of anger were completely harmless, khruschev could wipe out a country if he so chose.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Death of stalin was a movie like an eastern european anectote about the regime.
          Slightly exaggerated the truth for comedic effect but when you look it up, reality was 10x worse but in a different way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >my favorite sequence of scenes in movies (the development process one), being an engineer myself.
      as exacerbating as design by committee can be the actual story of the bradley ironically comes off as more of a success story for the process. sometimes a project can be too complicated for a single person to helm and the various requirements and perspectives need independent advocates or risk something critical getting left behind. but you don't get as many high profile stories of over engineering tanking a project because they tend to fizzle out rather than explode spectacularly.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    An actual child, posting on my /k/? Shouldn't you be in class?

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    That's the point you tard. They specifically destroy the optics.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      S

      how many of those popular clueless ziggers are there left anyway?
      >pedo ritter
      >armchair warlord
      >that one geriatric alexander guy whose name escapes me
      >canadian serb cryface

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget Jihadi Julian

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          doesn't look like a zigger to me, but i don't really remember him tbh. was he one of those who thought ukraine would shit the bed at first but then changed sides?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's a doomer homosexual who always whines and pretends every battle is lost before it's even begun, and he's consistently wrong.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >pretends every battle is lost before it's even begun
              That's just how Germans are.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    While the film's critics argue that it is overly critical of the Bradley program and that it exaggerates some of the problems, there is little doubt that the film has accurately captured the challenges of developing and fielding complex military systems. The Bradley IFV has been in service for over four decades, and it has proven to be a versatile and effective combat vehicle. However, the film's portrayal of the development process is still relevant today, as the defense industry continues to face similar challenges in meeting the needs of the military while also adhering to budget constraints.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To continue:
    >(only the USMC dares structure like the latter, and they pay for it by not fielding a good IFV that fits them all in one vehicle for best command and control)
    The US Marines are stuck in WW2 and are generally moronic which is why no other country copies what they do. Without going into too much detail, but having to manage three fireteams + detachments (which is now the size of a small platoon for certain countries) is too much for a junior NCO to handle. Plus, you have these massive squads and platoons yet a basic b***h Russian squad has more firepower than a average Marine platoon because of how weapons are deployed. The Marines do the weapon platoon concept (which is where the heavier man-portable weapons go) for their infantry companies where these crews are supposed to deployed down to the squads that need them. However, this is is moronic because how the frick would a company commander know which squad needs a belt-fed machine gun (or a RPG, etc.) which is why every other country in the world says frick it and deploys such weapon systems in infantry squads; meanwhile all a Marine squad has are their overpriced AR15 gas piston assault rifles and some grenade launchers.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *