Me as they send an infantry support vehicle to fight tanks, watching it's aluminium armor melt and vaporize.

Me as they send an infantry support vehicle to fight tanks, watching it's aluminium armor melt and vaporize.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    JAMES BURTON TONGUES MY ANUS

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    shut the fuck up and go back into hiding, Burton

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I want Peir Sprey to LEAVE!

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >seeing pentagon wars as a documentary rather than a comedy
    Bradleys with modern optics and TOWs will fuck up unsupported tanks. They did it in desert storm and they'll do it again.

    The guns will also do great against infantry, trenches and APCs. The autocannon will go through walls and the M240 will kill infantry. Both can be queued with thermals.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Still engaging tanks while your squad is buttoned up is retarded.

      I also think APCs and IFVs with easy access roof hatches for the squad are better because they can use their own rifles more easily to protect against an ambush or ride on the roof in a potentially mined area.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        anon, you're retarded. It was never meant to engage tanks with infantry inside, they are supposed to be dismounted well before contact with armor.

        The basic concept of IFV support.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How does the night-vision on Russian tanks compare to that found on Bradleys?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nevermind, did a bit of digging myself, it seems the Bradley's night-vision range is further than that of the TOWs it fires (TOW range = 3.75 km); whilst the night-vision found on the T-90 and T80U can only identify targets up to 3.24 km.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >How does the night-vision on Russian tanks compare to that found on Bradleys?
      Absolute trash, when it's still actually there IRL not just there on paper having been stolen or broken years/decades earlier. And of course, the Russians have crap general surveillance too. Or, like, fucking comms. The Bradleys will be tied into proper infantry/scout, aerial and orbital surveillance. Which isn't supposed to be anything special but it is vs the Russians.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And of course, the Russians have crap general surveillance too. Or, like, fucking comms.
        those are not sexy compared to tanks and fighters. A new tank or gun can be seen and touched, but advancing communications systems, launching advanced spy satellites, developing software for fire controls etc, all that shit don't really "wow" the general populace.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The ones on the Bradley are installed and they actually work.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >How does the night-vision on Russian tanks

      чтo?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      either stolen or broken unless tank crew pays a hefty sum
      this is not a joke
      t. knows a guy who knows a guy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It depends which Bradley and which Russian tanks.
      Russia's modernized tank force (modernised T-72B3, T-80BVM, T-90A) have the French second gen thermal imagers for the gunner but they are at best 1/3 of Russia's current tank force, and the rest have no thermals at all afaik.
      The super rare T-90Ms have independent thermal sights for the commander as well I believe.

      The M2 to M2A2 Bradley have 1st gen thermal imager for the gunner (the original from the 1980s)
      The M2A3 from the 2000s is modernized with 2nd gen for the gunner and independent 2nd gen for the commander.
      So far word of mouth is that the Ukrainians will receive M2A2 ODS, which don't have the upgraded optics package, but we likely won't know for sure until we see pictures.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You probably will do just fine seeing a towering beast that the Bradley is with just image intensifiers.

        There's nothing stealth about it.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hello tourist, my old friend.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know man. It worked pretty well the last time against pretty much identical force.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Done successfully before and will be done successfully again.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they can blow up?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Me as they send an infantry support vehicle to fight tanks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP it a colored person with no clue about these things.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Thread is about IFVs
      > Posts the stug III

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The optics on the vehicle is better than anything the russians have. Its a good vehicle for reconnaissance and infantry support. Along with having weapons that can deal with armor or infantry. The most important thing about the Bradley is that it can spot the enemy and provide fire support. It can spot enemy MBTs before the MBT spots them.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's over

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    so what's going to be the cope once they get there and munching soviet garbage like they did during the gulf war

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      inevitably a few will be lost one way or another and wreck photo will be spammed here non-stop

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    thanks to NATO for providing the aluminium grill for the hohol pig BBQ

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It still has far better protection then whatever BMPs the Russians tends to ride in.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How many tanks do Russians have left that aren't 50+ years old?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Whatever T90s are left and a few prototypes like the T14.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The movie had a point about how irrational US military procurement can be.
    But in their stupidity they accidentally obtained a vehicle that isn't bad at all.
    Tank are obsolete against modern army, but you'll find plenty of people here who will insist you "need" a old-school heavily armored tank.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the film doesn't even get the procurement part right
      the army wanted an IFV with a turret and at least a 20mm gun from the start. The idea that they wanted an M113 when they already HAD the m113 is fucking laughable

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tanks will never become obsolete because
      1) You will always need heavy direct-fire guns, and you cant mount such and their ammo on a small platform
      2) If you put it on an unarmoured chassis you're going to get fucked by any stray mortar or artillery shell, or one dinky 40mm grenade

      performance against other tanks or anti-tank weapons isnt even relevant, just like the performance of paratroopers against tanks isnt.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Time and technology march on and this was not the direct fire we needed much as precision fire and direct was at the time the only way to get it before but modern non-soviet-shit cannon can reach that precision with indirect fire as long as GPS or a pseudolite system works.
        The US was seriously considering replacing the Abram by indirect fire capable lighter tank, in the end they extended it's lifetime, made Stryker like the French wheeled gun and now work on the mysterious DLP project.
        https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-03/57085-ground-combat-vehicles.pdf

        Saying tank won't be obsolete is like saying current MBT operate the same way as WWII tank.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Time and technology march on and this was not the direct fire we needed much as precision fire and direct was at the time the only way to get it before but modern non-soviet-shit cannon can reach that precision with indirect fire as long as GPS or a pseudolite system works.

          Can you repeat this in actual english?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are just dumb, ESL or not

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Tank are obsolete against modern army

      You keep repeating this idiotic armchair amateur theory of yours schizo. Why? Not a single person with the slightest clue in military matters, let alone any military in the world, agrees with you. You are being laughed at for revealing your ignorance and stupidity every single time. Are you some kind of masochist? Do you have a humiliation fetish?

      >Verification not required.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nah it's a GRU misinformation campaign, look at elon musk's twitter.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >let alone any military in the world
        France, Britain and Germany have virtually no tanks

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They have the USA

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Threadly reminder that Bradleys destroyed more T-72s during the battle of 73 Easting alone than Bradleys were destroyed from enemy fire throughout the entire war.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, our IFV would have been better with a .30 cal machine gun as its main armament, thanks for your groundbreaking insight colonel

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Namer called. Just have your dismounts kill shit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Namer still has twice as much firepower as what this boomer design has and they're also making an IFV variant of it. its also fuck huge and weighs as much as an Abrams

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      . 30cal on ball joint. Basically you only need few Arabs in tower with Romanian PSL to pin down Pierre Spray IFV lel

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If we sent them a wing of VB200 blitzfighers, the war would have been over by christmas!

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    didn't bradleys get a considerable amount of T-72 kills during desert storm?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

      The long story is basically that the air war completely destroyed the Iraqi command and control network. The Iraqi government, even if it was capable of figuring out where American units were, was unable to communicate this effectively to Iraqi units. As a result, most battles were ones where the Iraqis were on the defensive (so the Americans could pick where and when to attack), or meeting engagements (both sides advancing/one retreating, generally the Americans knew the Iraqis were there but not vice versa).

      The looonnnggg distances involved generally meant the US could engage at night, or with thermals, far beyond the effective range of Iraqi units. Even though Iraqi tanks could absolutely kill Bradleys or similar at several km, they simply could not see the Americans at that range most of the time. Add in dust storms and you'd get battles where the Americans would pop out of nowhere, destroy several T-72s (generally including the command tank lmao), and the Iraqis would shit themselves and run away.

      As for Bradleys, they had TOWs and their autocannons. The autocannons were capable of destroying anything lighter than a tank (and did so), and the TOWs would wreck tanks at distances pretty close to what an M1 was capable of. IIRC a lot of the stated "kills" of Bradleys are a bit sketchy because there were a lot of engagements where the Abrams and Bradleys would engage simultaneously, but yes, the Bradley is more than capable of killing tanks in that environment just as well as an MBT.

      It'd be different in Ukraine since you have shorter distances (making enemy ATGM use more likely), better defensive positions (Kornets will kill a Bradley dead if used correctly), and less maneuver warfare. But still, a Bradley vs a T-72 in a meeting engagement at night will result in cyka and/or blyat.

      IMO it's the right move. Give the capable but less supply consuming vehicles over now, once the maneuver war starts give the MBTs.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Finland is planning to give Leopard 2:s to Ukraine
    Finally the real tanks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are they replacing their tanks soon or are they giving them their own active use stuff?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Probably the reserve stuff, which is still pretty big as that will be off from the wartime readiness

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can't wait for bradleys to pile up russian shit heaps just like at 73 easting.
    bonus blurry edited videos of "bradley destroyed*~~))" for the next 4 months as well

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >point out the "Bradley" that's shaped like a BTR and has wheels like a BTR
      >231/123/20/1
      >100 of those 123 images are seething NAFO images
      Now you've got me excited, fuck.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As long as they don't also send tanks they'll be fine.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You do realize even in the fictional rendering of the events surrounding the Bradley as depicted in this film, the Bradley ended up as an effective combat vehicle (just instead of it happening naturally as it did IRL despite Burton's constant inference, it happened BECAUSE of Burton's interference) right?
    To say nothing of the endless testaments that likely exist of the Bradley in the field during the Gulf conflict that all point to the Bradley being a superbly effective AFV. What I'm saying is you're an idiot. who is just repeating garbage from a movie that is likely older than you are.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bradleys did nothing but mop up during the Gulf War, and were an active hazard to American troops during the War on Terror.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then who cares if we send the extras to Ukraine?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >mop up
        Yes, mop up scores of T-72s

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You completely misinterpreting the situation and about to be proved wrong by history.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cope, vatnik

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You fight a war with what you have not what you wish you had
    And if you can have 'infantry support vehicles' when before you didn't, why the fuck are you refusing them

    those 'infantry support vehicles' are a sore sight better than fuckers on ATVs with a Javelin strapped to their back

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