It turned out to be a great idea. The Bradley saw heavy combat in the gulf war and was able to kill scores of armored vehicles and tanks with its TOW missiles
I have a model kit of this fricking thing and I love it, I'm too much of a pussy to open it though. They stopped making them a long time ago and they seem to have achieved some sort of collector status.
I dunno if you remember the forums a few years ago (like 2015-2018) discussing the possibility of bringing M6s out of retirement due to the threat of drones, this time with airburst rounds. But the use of laser systems + jammers has largely ended that conversation.
we already did - it was effectively a simple means of enabling Stinger teams to engage enemy aircraft from under armor instead of needing to dismount in a potential NBC environment
it's just not great
No US mechanized/motorized has been "great" since WWII, tbqh - for obvious reasons
The concept of using an IFV as ADV isn't as strange as you may think. The BMP-2 commander sight has a anti-aircraft reticule and the CV90 was designed from the beginning to be able to engage both ground and aerial targets.
Probably "why not," considering how many TOWs they had lying around.
Alternatively, "Damn my stocks are gonna frickin skyrocket if we get this contract going."
>An IFV is designed to transport and support mechanized infantry >One of a Tanks roles is to fight infantry >Ergo Infantry will sometimes come up against tanks >Therefore Infantry support vehicles should be able to fight tanks.
Also, the Bradley program's requirements were heavily influenced by the soviet BMPs hitting battlefields, of which several had ATGM launchers.
Against a T-72 that doesn't see him first, absolutely.
But even first gen AP rounds will cut right through the Bradley, so this battle is about dropping a TOW-2F through his roof before he acquires and engages you.
>what is Sosna-U >what is PNM-T >what is Sodema >what is ESSA >what is AGAVA-2
Before you even try use the western media narrative that they dont have the french parts needed in their thermal sights, Russia domesticated its production lines for Sosna-U and no longer needs western parts. The other sights are all fully domestic and produced in Russia with Russian parts.
they weren't and that's why it's being replaced by Ajax
admittedly, they have an opportunity to make something - like the Germans - that could be better than the Bradley, if they do it right. The Bradley is good at what it does because it's been upgraded steadily since 1981, actual meaningful upgrades. But it still has quirks because it's a 45+ year old design.
They basically did that. Not a single warrior was exported in its history. 250 were sold to Kuwait on the condition they remove the warriors turret entirely and replace it with the LAV-25 turret.
They were thinking sometimes enemy infantry is sitting inside a tank or a helicopter.
In a way almost every weapon is for fighting infantry if you think about it. Very few weapons were made that weren't for killing a human being or at least making that killing possible by removing their cover.
>what were they thinking?
Sometimes there are tanks. IFV without the ATGM is screwed when there are tanks. IFV with ATGM can make tank go boom, and so is not screwed when there are tanks. Is that simple enough for you?
Hey there Col Burton, have you learned anything about armoured vehicles since the 'joint live fire' boondoggle you were running way back? Do you think you can define the difference between 'is a tank' and 'is not a tank' yet?
Not sure about Burton, he kinda dropped off the map after he was laughed out of the Pentagon - but Sprey absolutely sold out to be the resident 'America military = poo poo' talking head for Russia Today.
I think Burton deserves a meager amount of credit for pretty much going underground after his resignation.
Sprey and Sparks though, frick them. The former sold out, the latter became a schizo.
Congratulations to Burton, he gets to be the least moronic person on the Reformer short bus. Sparkie deserves at least some credit for being an entertaining schizo, in short doses at least.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sparks' mental state has deteriorated so badly that he now unironically believes that any wheeled armored vehicle is designed by satanists for the sole purpose of killing the troops who ride them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He'd fit in well here. I was thinking more about his constant, moronic, political rants though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I mean Sparks DID spend his entire (officer) career in an m113 doing logistics for an artillery unit
Some of the stories from Bradley crews in the Gulf War were insane
?list=PLmlOlokCCWI_KkzCUXSsuo11PolRWGPiq&t=1521
I always wondered if he actually used his commander's override to engage that T-72 with his cannon, but years later I realized the show makes it look like much greater depression of the gun than actually happened
kek you’re seething. Nearly 7,000 were produced and maybe 150 destroyed in all. That’s incredible considering the amount of combat it’s seen. Armor on armor in the gulf war and heavy urban combat in iraq 2. It’s the best performing western IFV of all time
It massively over performs with the amount of vehicles it’s killed in the gulf alone. Plus the amount it makes you seethe has to count for something right
2 years ago
Anonymous
Do you have proof it killed more than 170 tanks/ifvs? Like real statistics. Most likely its over inflated
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why is he carrying two identical rifles?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Got them from the rekt Bradley behind that is unsafe as frick
2 years ago
Anonymous
So if he runs out of ammo on one, he can use the other, duh
Holy shit only 170? That’s incredible for how much combat it’s seen? We’re they all lost to enemy fire or were some lost to bloodthirsty a-10 pilots as well?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Its also common practice for other vehicles in the unit to destroy a disabled vehicle to prevent looting/capture. Its where most of the destroyed Abrams photos come from as well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Isn't the current loss count of BMP's in a 6 month war up to 672?
The cope has started. The Bradley's were removed from Iraq early because of how badly they performed.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They were still there until the troop withdrawal in 2009.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Vasili, I know your Father, brother, uncle, and cousins all died in BMPs thought Russia's wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine. But lashing out like this will never bring them back.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is it common place for them to just fold into themselves? They look weak af
2 years ago
Anonymous
?t=49
If an armored vehicle is hit by something large enough and in the right place yes.
So, over 4 decades, they only lost 170 light skinned vehicles? Shit anon, Russia has probably lost that many vehicles in Ukraine this month alone.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Comparing anything to Russia is not a good look
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Russia has probably lost that many vehicles in Ukraine this month alone
They probably lost more. They lost like 2~3 thousand vehicles in total and that was over 6 months. They are probably losing 300~500 vehicles/monthly.
War is like a chess board. Sometimes you gotta give up some pieces in the overall scope of things.
Russia is giving up a lot of pieces but will still achieve checkmate without direct NATO intervention.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yeah they'll be checkmated all right. Check mate when one of these slams through the gate to the kremlin.
This incredibly glaring design flaw obviously means that we need to move the fuel tanks to outside the vehicle's armor!
t. Col Pierre "Sparks" Burton, Self-proclaimed designer of every successful military vehicle ever made, in his appearance on RT's "Why NATO are big mean doodoo heads but also weak and Russia stronk)" Program
Because it isn't meant to directly trade blows with anti-armor weapon emplacements or tanks. It has a heavy enough gun to shred infantry and other light vehicles, and some ATGMs if it runs into a vehicle much more heavily armored than itself.
If you carry heavy enough armor to make it highly resistant to antiarmor weapons then there will no longer be enough space and weight capacity to carry men, to keep it mobile you'll have to enlarge the engine, bigger engine means it needs more fuel, etc, until eventually you've got an MBT.
Certainly. For the Bradley you just push a button and it’s dual feeding ammo system allows you to switch instantly. The warrior on the other hand, oh boy, you see it feeds from 3 round clips. 4 clips can be loaded into the feeder of the gun at anytime for an impotent 12 ready rounds. If you wish to change ammo types the gunner has to stop what he’s doing and physically remove the clips and replace with clips of the desired ammo type. It takes much more time than simply pressing a button
The general reputation of the Bradley has recovered over the past few years in military discussion circles, because people suddenly remembered that the Gulf War happened. It's now only seriously maligned by schizos like the warriortard, who seems to scan /k/ for any IFV-related thread and post completely made-up numbers outside of the 170 total losses.
I loved that movie as a kid. But now that I am older I can see Burton was somewhat wrong in his analysis of the program. Even though I think he still had very noble intentions.
>noble intentions
the Black person's idea of "improved survivability" was to not only NOT increase the armor protection like the military suggested for the a2 model (which improved the front armor to be mostly impervious to shitty russian 30mm used to this day) because he still wanted it to be amphibious, but to move nearly all the ammo outside of the vehicle besides what was stored ready.
The man's ideas are fricking terrible.
>Even though I think he still had very noble intentions.
Burton irl never wanted to actually improve the Bradley. He just wanted to prove the army was wrong.
The amount of vehicles Bradley has killed in the battle of 73 easting alone was incredible. Really great system. I can completely see why it’s the second most exported western IFV of all time
Say what you will about warriortards spamming, but he really opened everyone’s eyes to just how big of a piece of shit the warrior is. Even the most casual of /k/ posters now know the inherent flaws of the design
too bad the TOW can remain raised during movement IRL it's just highly discouraged to do so at speed or in wooded/urban areas because of the lesser support of the raised box
No one here has given the historical reply: because at that time, the West was expecting a flood of Russian tanks and they were putting antitank missiles on fricking EVERYTHING >shoulders >jeeps >APCs and IFVs >helicopters >tanks >mortars >tube artillery >rocket artillery >airplanes
EVERYTHINGGGGG.GIF
It turned out to be a great idea. The Bradley saw heavy combat in the gulf war and was able to kill scores of armored vehicles and tanks with its TOW missiles
pretty sure the Bradley even had more T-72 kills than the Abrams...
They should also add AA missiles to it, and a laser.
Add cheese
You're gonna love the M6 Linebacker then
I have a model kit of this fricking thing and I love it, I'm too much of a pussy to open it though. They stopped making them a long time ago and they seem to have achieved some sort of collector status.
I dunno if you remember the forums a few years ago (like 2015-2018) discussing the possibility of bringing M6s out of retirement due to the threat of drones, this time with airburst rounds. But the use of laser systems + jammers has largely ended that conversation.
That's so fricking cool.
FUND IT
we already did - it was effectively a simple means of enabling Stinger teams to engage enemy aircraft from under armor instead of needing to dismount in a potential NBC environment
it's just not great
No US mechanized/motorized has been "great" since WWII, tbqh - for obvious reasons
>LINEBACKER
Such a good name. Loved that thing in BF2.
The concept of using an IFV as ADV isn't as strange as you may think. The BMP-2 commander sight has a anti-aircraft reticule and the CV90 was designed from the beginning to be able to engage both ground and aerial targets.
They were thinking right since it destroyed more tanks than the Abrams
They should make a IFV that has nothing but ATGM's
Probably "why not," considering how many TOWs they had lying around.
Alternatively, "Damn my stocks are gonna frickin skyrocket if we get this contract going."
Have you considered that the infantry it's supporting may encounter tanks?
>An IFV is designed to transport and support mechanized infantry
>One of a Tanks roles is to fight infantry
>Ergo Infantry will sometimes come up against tanks
>Therefore Infantry support vehicles should be able to fight tanks.
Also, the Bradley program's requirements were heavily influenced by the soviet BMPs hitting battlefields, of which several had ATGM launchers.
>infantry disembarks
>they see tonk
>"ahh ! tonk ! need backup !"
>bradley drives up
>shoots missile
>russian turret comicly flies in the air
I bet, this baby can easily sustain and win fight with T-72.
Against a T-72 that doesn't see him first, absolutely.
But even first gen AP rounds will cut right through the Bradley, so this battle is about dropping a TOW-2F through his roof before he acquires and engages you.
Russian tanks don't have thermals and their periscope is literally from a T-34 so Bradleys would have a field day
>what is Sosna-U
>what is PNM-T
>what is Sodema
>what is ESSA
>what is AGAVA-2
Before you even try use the western media narrative that they dont have the french parts needed in their thermal sights, Russia domesticated its production lines for Sosna-U and no longer needs western parts. The other sights are all fully domestic and produced in Russia with Russian parts.
They would kill the warrior just as dead as the Bradley. What kind of argument is “this ifv is killed by tank main gun round”
What is with your obsession of the Warrior? Were you raped by one or somthing?
You just described the gulf war.
Some of the stories from Bradley crews in the Gulf War were insane
?list=PLmlOlokCCWI_KkzCUXSsuo11PolRWGPiq&t=1521
GTB was an amazing show. Can't believe they didn't do more ep
>smirkingMcVeigh.gif
You are now consciously aware of all of the warrior IFV’s glaring flaws. Bottom left hand corner of pic very much related
It's also loaded with three round clips....funny enough the chain gun on the Warrior is the fricking coax....what were the bongs thinking?
they weren't and that's why it's being replaced by Ajax
admittedly, they have an opportunity to make something - like the Germans - that could be better than the Bradley, if they do it right. The Bradley is good at what it does because it's been upgraded steadily since 1981, actual meaningful upgrades. But it still has quirks because it's a 45+ year old design.
Bongs should have just slapped a Bradley turret on a Warrior chassis and called it a day. It would have been good enough.
They basically did that. Not a single warrior was exported in its history. 250 were sold to Kuwait on the condition they remove the warriors turret entirely and replace it with the LAV-25 turret.
They were thinking sometimes enemy infantry is sitting inside a tank or a helicopter.
In a way almost every weapon is for fighting infantry if you think about it. Very few weapons were made that weren't for killing a human being or at least making that killing possible by removing their cover.
>what were they thinking?
Sometimes there are tanks. IFV without the ATGM is screwed when there are tanks. IFV with ATGM can make tank go boom, and so is not screwed when there are tanks. Is that simple enough for you?
That they want to shoot missiles at tanks, probably.
Frick I need to catch up on Gone With the Blastwave
Why is it so fricking vulnerable bros it literally gets rekt by basic b***h rpg7
Modern A4s have steel side skirts and ERA protecting from basic rpg-7s.
Hey there Col Burton, have you learned anything about armoured vehicles since the 'joint live fire' boondoggle you were running way back? Do you think you can define the difference between 'is a tank' and 'is not a tank' yet?
Don't him and his buddies make money training people how to tell the Chinese and Russians that American high tech stuff is crap?
Not sure about Burton, he kinda dropped off the map after he was laughed out of the Pentagon - but Sprey absolutely sold out to be the resident 'America military = poo poo' talking head for Russia Today.
I think Burton deserves a meager amount of credit for pretty much going underground after his resignation.
Sprey and Sparks though, frick them. The former sold out, the latter became a schizo.
Congratulations to Burton, he gets to be the least moronic person on the Reformer short bus. Sparkie deserves at least some credit for being an entertaining schizo, in short doses at least.
Sparks' mental state has deteriorated so badly that he now unironically believes that any wheeled armored vehicle is designed by satanists for the sole purpose of killing the troops who ride them.
He'd fit in well here. I was thinking more about his constant, moronic, political rants though.
I mean Sparks DID spend his entire (officer) career in an m113 doing logistics for an artillery unit
>BUSKs in your path
I always wondered if he actually used his commander's override to engage that T-72 with his cannon, but years later I realized the show makes it look like much greater depression of the gun than actually happened
It’s by far the sexiest IFV produced to date. Modern ones look really gay with the barrel shrouds
Too little too late I'm afraid, so fricking many were destroyed. It's basically the western equivilant to the BMP2 It's been rekt that much
kek you’re seething. Nearly 7,000 were produced and maybe 150 destroyed in all. That’s incredible considering the amount of combat it’s seen. Armor on armor in the gulf war and heavy urban combat in iraq 2. It’s the best performing western IFV of all time
170. The most destroyed Western vehicle to date. Terrible to be honest, maybe it breaks even with kills to losses though?
It massively over performs with the amount of vehicles it’s killed in the gulf alone. Plus the amount it makes you seethe has to count for something right
Do you have proof it killed more than 170 tanks/ifvs? Like real statistics. Most likely its over inflated
Why is he carrying two identical rifles?
Got them from the rekt Bradley behind that is unsafe as frick
So if he runs out of ammo on one, he can use the other, duh
>The most destroyed Western vehicle to date.
that really doesn't mean much when it's also the only one that actually sees combat
Holy shit only 170? That’s incredible for how much combat it’s seen? We’re they all lost to enemy fire or were some lost to bloodthirsty a-10 pilots as well?
Its also common practice for other vehicles in the unit to destroy a disabled vehicle to prevent looting/capture. Its where most of the destroyed Abrams photos come from as well.
The cope has started. The Bradley's were removed from Iraq early because of how badly they performed.
They were still there until the troop withdrawal in 2009.
Vasili, I know your Father, brother, uncle, and cousins all died in BMPs thought Russia's wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine. But lashing out like this will never bring them back.
Is it common place for them to just fold into themselves? They look weak af
?t=49
If an armored vehicle is hit by something large enough and in the right place yes.
Isn't the current loss count of BMP's in a 6 month war up to 672?
So, over 4 decades, they only lost 170 light skinned vehicles? Shit anon, Russia has probably lost that many vehicles in Ukraine this month alone.
Comparing anything to Russia is not a good look
>Russia has probably lost that many vehicles in Ukraine this month alone
They probably lost more. They lost like 2~3 thousand vehicles in total and that was over 6 months. They are probably losing 300~500 vehicles/monthly.
War is like a chess board. Sometimes you gotta give up some pieces in the overall scope of things.
Russia is giving up a lot of pieces but will still achieve checkmate without direct NATO intervention.
yeah they'll be checkmated all right. Check mate when one of these slams through the gate to the kremlin.
Post stabilizer
This incredibly glaring design flaw obviously means that we need to move the fuel tanks to outside the vehicle's armor!
t. Col Pierre "Sparks" Burton, Self-proclaimed designer of every successful military vehicle ever made, in his appearance on RT's "Why NATO are big mean doodoo heads but also weak and Russia stronk)" Program
Because it isn't meant to directly trade blows with anti-armor weapon emplacements or tanks. It has a heavy enough gun to shred infantry and other light vehicles, and some ATGMs if it runs into a vehicle much more heavily armored than itself.
If you carry heavy enough armor to make it highly resistant to antiarmor weapons then there will no longer be enough space and weight capacity to carry men, to keep it mobile you'll have to enlarge the engine, bigger engine means it needs more fuel, etc, until eventually you've got an MBT.
>NOOOOOOO EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE A WW2 CAPABLE OF BEING SERVICED BY A TRACTOR MECHANIC!!!!!
God I hate ref*rmers
>giving your IFV an emergency 'Delete Tank' button is bad
I can’t figure out which ifv is better, Bradley or warrior. Can someone post the process of switching from HE ammo to AP ammo while engaged in combat?
Certainly. For the Bradley you just push a button and it’s dual feeding ammo system allows you to switch instantly. The warrior on the other hand, oh boy, you see it feeds from 3 round clips. 4 clips can be loaded into the feeder of the gun at anytime for an impotent 12 ready rounds. If you wish to change ammo types the gunner has to stop what he’s doing and physically remove the clips and replace with clips of the desired ammo type. It takes much more time than simply pressing a button
This has to be cap. There’s no way the British would field an IFV that doesn’t have dual feed capabilities at the press of a button.
No cap fr fr on god you have to manually change out the rounds.
Your autism is off the scale man seek help
?t=195
Frick yeah, all arms adverts should be done in this 80's style.
modern ads are pretty fricking good though
this wasn't posted yet?
have a nice day immediately
The general reputation of the Bradley has recovered over the past few years in military discussion circles, because people suddenly remembered that the Gulf War happened. It's now only seriously maligned by schizos like the warriortard, who seems to scan /k/ for any IFV-related thread and post completely made-up numbers outside of the 170 total losses.
I loved that movie as a kid. But now that I am older I can see Burton was somewhat wrong in his analysis of the program. Even though I think he still had very noble intentions.
>noble intentions
the Black person's idea of "improved survivability" was to not only NOT increase the armor protection like the military suggested for the a2 model (which improved the front armor to be mostly impervious to shitty russian 30mm used to this day) because he still wanted it to be amphibious, but to move nearly all the ammo outside of the vehicle besides what was stored ready.
The man's ideas are fricking terrible.
>Intention was in his mind to keep the troops safe, even though his ideas were wrong
Yes, like I said. Noble intentions.
>Even though I think he still had very noble intentions.
Burton irl never wanted to actually improve the Bradley. He just wanted to prove the army was wrong.
The amount of vehicles Bradley has killed in the battle of 73 easting alone was incredible. Really great system. I can completely see why it’s the second most exported western IFV of all time
So we agree this thing is about on par with a bmp2
Works awesome in Combat Mission Blac Sea
Holy shit the dude who defends the warrior is in a really bad place mentally. Maybe we should ease up on the warriorchadding for a while
Say what you will about warriortards spamming, but he really opened everyone’s eyes to just how big of a piece of shit the warrior is. Even the most casual of /k/ posters now know the inherent flaws of the design
It’s incredible. It’s the most factually accurate shill campaign I’ve ever seen
It's clunky and slow to move the TOW into firing mode.
too bad the TOW can remain raised during movement IRL it's just highly discouraged to do so at speed or in wooded/urban areas because of the lesser support of the raised box
Jesus Christ when that TOW hit the roof that guy saw his entire life flash before his eyes.
that is not a TOW tourist zoomer, that is a missile system on a ship
>IFV
>Only has ATGMs
Wouldn't that just make it a tank destroyer?
>what were they thinking
'i like missiles'
>Infantry platoon has an atgm
>What were they thinking?
Anal
What are you complaining about? IFVs and ATGMs go together like peanut butter and jelly.
No one here has given the historical reply: because at that time, the West was expecting a flood of Russian tanks and they were putting antitank missiles on fricking EVERYTHING
>shoulders
>jeeps
>APCs and IFVs
>helicopters
>tanks
>mortars
>tube artillery
>rocket artillery
>airplanes
EVERYTHINGGGGG.GIF