Can the m3 Bradley be classified as a light tank?

Can the m3 Bradley be classified as a light tank?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >troop transport
    >classified as a light tank

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      M3 isn’t a troop transport

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >troop transport that can't transport troops, a tank that can't fire tank rounds, an amphibious assault vehicle that can't go into the water, a tank killer that can't kill tanks with its main autocannon, a recon vehicle that can't do recon, a tank that has so little armor anything will shred it to pieces.

        Heh, I bet this thing is some kind of monster that doesn't fit into any assigned roles, a kind of "jack of all trades, master of none" monster. Why'd they even make it?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Pentagon Wars

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a tank killer that can't kill tanks with its main autocannon
          I get that you're memeing but we have visual confirmation that this isn't the case.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >ends up recording more tank kills from 1990-current day than any other ground vehicle on planet earth
          Lol. Lmao.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >M3 isn’t a troop transport
        Funny because it carries two scouts. Therefore... it TRANSPORTS TROOPS

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      transport

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the M3 is technically a cavalry fighting vehicle, as the light tank designation no longer exists
    it does fill a similar role to the M3 stuart, as both of them were used for cavalry and recon

    if you want to be very pedantic, then the M3 is closer to the M8 greyhound, since the M3 stuart was used in light tank platoons in addition to cav troops
    but the M24 chaffee that replaced the M3 and M5 stuarts was only used in cav units after WW2, so its moot

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >light tank designation no longer exists
      Booker?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Assault gun

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Killdozer?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ya mudda

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        M10 is not designated as a light tank, nor it is designated as a cavalry vehicle, scout vehicle, recon vehicle, or anything vaguely resembling the light role

        its simply the M10, pending official classification
        and is used in M10 battalions the structure of which is reminiscent of assault gun platoons of WW2

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's nothing light about the Booker. It's in the same weight class as the M60, Leo 1, and T-72. Just because it's less porky than the Abrams doesn't make it a light tank.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Light is a measure of comparison. MBT are 70t+ now making a 40t tank light in comparison. Generals have referred to it as a light vehicle.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/LzRWeGJ.png

      Can the m3 Bradley be classified as a light tank?

      Think of it like a modern day "dragoon."
      Or as a skirmisher.
      A concept few have ever given much coverage.

      Yeah. M8 maybe.
      Or like BRDM-2 but tracked and not shit.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has turret. It has treads. It is armored.
    It is a tank.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it has a turret
      What do you call this?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Germans called it a Kampfwagen, not Panzerkampfwagen or Kampfpanzer.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hagen uns schnuck

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Schneiden und Feiden

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A breadbox

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Assault shed

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        one of the worst designs in history

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what do you call this
        A "pre-codification" vehicle, similar to the BMP-1, where the base concept has been developed, but is eventually refined into something whereby the first generation designs fall outside of the technical description.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      journy moment.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    are both of these vehicles tanks?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only the one on the left is a real tank by modern standards.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok that is a sexy tonk, is that chally 3?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The one on the left isn't.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In German, you don't need all this pedantic nonsense. Literally every armored vehicle with tracked wheels is just called a panzer

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even wheeled vehicles are Radpanzer.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even wheeled vehicles are Radpanzer.

        Honestly I like it. Just call all armored vehicles "Armor", let the anti-armor weaponry sort them out.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Panzerkampfwagen tho

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The one of the left was design so its gun could fire down into trench lines; we could use it again in this day and age.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      now its ready to blast some orks huehuehuehue

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Besides the T-34 turret being about twice the height and width it should be, the Mark II is a rear-engine front wheel drive, if you put a turret in the middle of the tank the gunners legs would be dangling over the main shaft

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Based autist. But I was just making a Leman Russ tank.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Witness the power of 3D spectography

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Both were primarily used to fill the doctrinal role of a tank and are therefore tanks
      Bradley armoured fighting vehicles are not primarily used to fill the doctrinal role of a tank and are therefore not tanks of any kind

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's some revisionist history.
        Tank literally ALWAYS meant "thing with armor with tracks and hopefully a gun".
        The Bradley is a tank, the BTR-82 is not a tank.
        Any questions?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          moron

          is an MT-LB a tank?
          - thing
          - with "armor"
          - with tracks
          - hopefully a gun

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, probably.
            Now please, define what the word tank means, kiddo.
            Pic unrelated.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A tracked, armored vehicle mounting a large caliber cannon designed for breakthrough operations or to prevent enemy tanks from doing the same

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then the Mark II is not a tank while also being the very literal Ur example of what a tank is.
                You're adding so much extra bullshit onto that definition, stop being so extra just to win an argument you zesty homie

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Behold - a tank!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Could you at least try to show things that aren't obviously tanks?
            Kind of hurting your pedantic argument there, Diogenes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I always wanted a time machine just so i could go back and show inventors what their creations would evolve into. Imagine the look on the Wright brothers faces at a Blue Angels show.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolutely

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sure. Even your mom can be classified as a light tank.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >M3
    >Bradley
    I'm really confused by OP. Also I just realized the Bradley driver's hatch has more vision blocks than an entire T-72.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The M3 is the cavalry variant of the Bradley. It only has room for two dismounted scouts, but it carries a ton more ammunition than the M2.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but it carries a ton more ammunition than the M2.
        Like, LITERALLY an extra ton? Or, like, figuratively a frickton more? It'd be fun to see numbers. Also, sounds like it could go 30 mm and carry more than an M2 with a 25 mm.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why go through the expense and logistical headache of having a different gun on a niche variant

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A figurative frickton

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It carries 1500 rounds of 25mm versus the 900 of the M2 Bradley, and 12 TOW missiles instead of 7

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So its not a ton more, its 2.27-2.52 tons more depending on the type of ammo being loaded

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              wait nvm i fricked up the math, its only a quarter ton at best

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a technical. A FAMAS, if you will.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is a 'tank'. A tank is a genus. Under this genus, there are many species of tanks such as MBT, light, heavy, cavalry, infantry tank etc etc etc. Some tank species have gone extinct. Others evolved into something else. Some, like light tanks are coming back while others, like the MBTs are facing extinction. Think of the Ukraine War as the K-T extinction event for MBTs.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    m3 is light tank in shit thunder because devs are too lazy to add more classes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homie self propelled artillery is classified as tank destroyers in shit thunder because you can hit someone's cupola with a laser precision

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I fricking hate how bushmasters sound in WT, pure ass. Makes me regret my choice of america as my fist nation. All the fun ended with Shermans anyway

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing is good after 3.7

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing is good after 3.7

      m50 and m56?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      US ground is so underpowered that it made me quit the game after 2500 hours of maining shit nations like france and italy

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Unironic skill issue ngl, US has a great ground tech-tree. The only problem is motivating yourself to grind through 15 shermans, which are each fine, its just the same tank over and over again gets really old.
        The M18s are incredible and have stupidly overperforming post-pen, M36 is good, M41 is good, M56 is funny, both sherman jumbos are overpowered in a downtier and better than german tanks in urban maps, which you mostly get. It has hilariously undertiered post-war tanks from 6.7-7.7, pershing is good, super pershing is OP, T29 P2W and undertiered, T34 is OP, both T32s are almost immortal hulldown, M103 is great, M60 is a pain in the ass, M46 and M47 are ok, T92 is amazing, T95 is fun but you'll get bombed etc. Oh and gets radar spaa at 7.7 for some ~~*reason*~~.
        Only real problem with the US tree is 1) US mains have room temp IQs, 2) US mains just go into a plane at first opportunity, and then often die then leave, and 3) From 7.7+, the T95E1 and T54E1 are both very good, but the M48 is fricking boring to play and it isnt very good, just weirdly surviveable. Then the early M60 is the same, its well armoured but just so ponderous, and the US teams continue to be inbred. Then you get *even more* M60s..The M551 is unique, M60A2 is...interesting. Bradley is ok. The XM803 and MBT-70 are both fine from 9.0 though. So its just getting through that 7.7-9.0 part. After that the US tanks are very good, especially with the reload buff to the Abrams, which gets overperforming armour in game too.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the tanks are not bad but US high tier is completely at the mercy of the matchmaker and the teams are also horrible. no exaggeration most games have half the US players disconnected by the 5 minute mark.
          >skill issue
          yeah must be why i consistently carry my team in my ariete or leclerc
          >abrams has overperforming armour
          damn i wish i read that before wasting these keystrokes on a moronic zoomer

          https://i.imgur.com/h1nn8dc.jpeg

          >US ground is so underpowered
          Skill issue.

          >what is anecdotal evidence
          US has the worst win rate at about 30% btw

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now explain to me why would I care about anything but personal experience.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              because the win rates being so bad means that you're generally at a huge disadvantage playing US.
              if you have a good time anyway though then it either means you're a god at the game or you're just lucky with the times/region/bracket you play in.
              good for you. i'm a good player with 56% win rate over 30k battles in RB, i exclusively play top tier and i know that top tier US is dogshit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah the US teams ruin the experience, its partially a problem of there being so many low levels with premiums, although Germany and USSR also suffer from that. Its a real dice roll as to which team gets more morons, and minor nations can end up on any side and just along for the ride. The Leclerc is actually quite good, its fast, its surviveable and has a decent autoloader+blowout panels. The Ariete is pretty sad atm, but better than the Challenger 2's, at least you're getting the Leo2A7 next update.

            The Abrapps turret ring is too thin, its partially because part of it isnt actually modelled, and partially because the rest of it isnt modelled volumetrically. Its like 50mm when it should be ~150mm. The lfp is too thick though, it should be 340mm vs KE across all models, in-game its 400mm. The cheeks also overperform in the M1IP, M1A1 and the M1A2. Irl the IP and A1 had ~380-400mm vs KE, in game they have around 450mm+. The M1A2's is overperforming by >50mm too, it shouldnt be able to resist more than 600mm frontally, except for at oblique impact angles. That being said you also have soviet tanks, whose performance is hilariously innacurate due to armour covering where it physically should not (around the breech mostly), the arrays being estimated volumetrically but not having volumetric actually applied to them (irl you can actually bypass the t-72 turret array completely from a 45* angle) , magic side armour on the BVM, magic autoloaders which doesnt spall and ammo which doesnt explode, magic ERA which cant be bypassed and has a forcefield to cover physical gaps in coverage and areas where there is no actual explosive. They also dont have their sub-par stabilisers and optics reflected in-game. Then again, Leopard 2s are almost accurate, although the Leo2 in game has C-tech armour instead of B-tech, so the Leo2s with the 105s should have B-tech, and so also have overperforming armour.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US ground is so underpowered
        Skill issue.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i can't believe i managed to get past ALL THOSE FRICKING SHERMANS i had to drive. on the plus side, i got really good at driving shit tanks and now its funny to watch tank drivers just... roll at you? though now i have a visceral reaction to seeing a sherman.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Americans are stuck in sherman hell for ever
      >British have never even heard of APHE
      >Germans fighting cold war tanks with ww2 tanks.
      >Russians have 5% chance to not call their hits regardless of what hit them
      slav devs

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If it kills other tanks and does everything a tank does, it’s a tank.
    The Bradley has killed more tanks than any other vehicle system.
    Through sheer perseverance and tank killing it has secured its seat in tank Valhalla.

    And yes, tracked artillery can also count as a tank. Assuming it is good at killing other tanks.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, it is an infantry fighting vehicle

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The M3 is a CAVALRY fighting vehicle.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It does fill a lot of the same doctrinal roles a light tank would, so I think you could make the argument that it's something of an ersatz tank.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no but it could be classified as a light gay gay that gets raped in the ass

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, it's a better armed M113 (TOW)

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, it fills the same role.
    >but it has sets in the back
    It's still a light armoured vehicle providing infantry support to deal with emplacements and light armour.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's kind of xbox huge, so not really

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In German it would be called a Schützen Panzer. Whether or not it's a tank is all semantics and how you define the word tank

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Brotherhood of Nod used the Bradley and called it a light tank.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You could classify it as a light tank depending on how you define the word tank. I'd say in the english language the most authoritative source when it comes to the definitions of weapons and armor is the US military which does not classify it as a tank. So if you wanna be accurate you wouldn't call it a tank especially not on an autism group therapy forum like this one but you can use whatever colloquial definition you want man

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US doesn't call anything a tank, kid.
      They have main battle tanks, not tanks.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Blocks your path

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/ALqNM33.jpeg

              https://i.imgur.com/2QXFlv6.jpeg

              Now show me the part in those manuals that say that the M1 Abrams isn't a main battle tank but simply a tank.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is the only appearance of MBT in the 111 page document. Just tank appears 48 times.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's what I was referring to when I said autism

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It can be classified as a good target practice for Russians when you send them in your next self-humiliation package.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It can definitely be classified as second to none

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >light tanks are Russia's greatest weakness
    Oh hell yes, HoI4 trained us for this.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Two screenshotted personal anecdotes? The preponderance of the evidence must be wrong, good job anon you convinced me.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Huh

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you're Mike Sparks everything with tracks is a tank. Add wings an you don't need an air force.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i've heard picrel called a tank more than the bradley. besides the brad is too heavy to be a light tank

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's just a dire SUV

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