This is a Bradley Fighting Vehicle

How effective do you think it'd be in a battle against Russian armour?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    can you stop posting this fucking retard i cant be bothered reading these stupid posts

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >spot t72, he doesn't spot you, tow him. you win
    >t72 spots you, get penned, you lose
    I would say russian armor would win more often then not because the Bradley only gets two tows, and then you have to do a proper reload. Also are they getting tow2b or standard tow2? There is a chance that modern t72's can absorb a regular tandem from a braley in the front. Once you run out of tows, it's just a 25mm meme that only can kill light armor or infantry.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There is a chance that modern t72's can absorb a regular tandem from a braley in the front
      They're sending them out with Kontakt 1
      I don't think the T-72 B3 has a different composite than the 80s T-72s

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        t72b3 has kontact 5 no? and the newer one has relikt era

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >t72b3 has kontact 5 no? and the newer one has relikt era
          It's supposed to, but there has been footage of Russian tanks that should have Kontakt 5 fitted with Kontakt 1. I think the only deployed tanks fitted with Relikt that we've seen have been a few T-90Ms

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If the bradelys are fitted with thermals or even the old night sights it will be infinitely more capable than the T-series that have been deployed up to this point.
      The Russians are not fighting according to their doctrine (or training, LMAO) and we've seen enough examples of them sending them out alone. Visibility out of the T-72's/90's is also notoriously poor compared to anything the West has produced the last 30 years.

      We're going to see a lot more "This is just like Wargame" footage, where some Bradley in a tree line tosses a T-72's turret from 2k away.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hell no. The Bradley has actually usable optics, including thermals. The chances that a Bradley will see a T-72 first and get a TOW off at long range are pretty good. That's why they performed as well as they did in Iraq. And with like 1.6k tank losses for the ruskies, the chances of encountering more than 2 at the same time are minimal

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Bradley has actually usable optics, including thermals.

        This is one part that a lot of people do underestimate thats for sure. One of the major reasons desert storm was so one sided was that the US just rode in at night because the enemy was blind.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most Russian tanks have thermals too. Idk where this misconception came from that Russia is operating 70s shitboxes. it isn't true. The reason they are losing so many is incompetence, not equipment. The brad has better thermals sure but you guys are gonna be shocked when they aren't trading 100:1 like they did against t72m bunkers. probably going to look more like 3:1.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In theory, they have thermals. In practice some guy working in procurement has a new used Lada.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Iran-Iraq War
          >"the T-72 is good, the Arabs just have monkey models"
          >Desert Storm
          >"The T-72M is good the Arabs just monkey models with no Night Vision"
          >Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo
          >"The T-72B3M is good, the Iraqis just abandoned most of them on the road!"
          >Today
          >"The T-72B3M and T-90M are good tanks, I swear. The Russians just don't know how to use their own vehicles!"

          The tanks are shit. If the russians can't use their own tanks then no one can.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The year is 2025:
            "the T-72B3M is good, the Ukrops just beat the world's second best army with it"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Bradley could carry a single TOW and it would still turn Russian tankers into soup. This isn't a video game, they can literally just leave.

      >BUT WHAT IF THEY RUN INTO MULTIPLE TANKS???

      Use of these things is not going to be to fight big battles with Russian shitboxes, it'll be to drive up to a spotted Russian tank and ice it while being safe from random infantry, and to hunt tanks that aren't behind Russian lines when night falls.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That sums up just about every armor vs armor engagement in history. He whoever sees the enemy first typically wins.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just another reminder that the primary role of a Bradley is NOT a tank hunter killer. If you are putting them toe to toe against a MBT or expecting them to do so you are a literal fucking moron.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      well neither was the Stug originally and it did great against tanks

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Its also not the 1940s anymore. It was a good idea for its time and performed well at its role but it was still never a tank hunter killer. It had a similar role as the bradley does today really. Move with troops and provide them with reasonable support to deal with unexpected threats to them. If they needed to shell a bunker thats what they did. If they needed to step out and provide some cover thats what they did. If an an enemy tank showed up it was not so much their job to destory the tank but to suppress it and MAYBE get a kill if it were safe. It was never meant to be used in a direct engagement of tanks except as a last resort.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, but they will send tanks to counter it because what else can counter it? Btr82a or bmp 2 autocanno is shit and they would be raped by a 25 mm superior autocannon because they have a paperthin armor.
      So they will send t72abcdefg to counter it and it will fight with the tanks.(The main enemy of bradley would be an artyllery still)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And in a perfect world shit like that would be easy and work but thats not how it plays out in reality. Its not a simple rock paper scissors mentality out there. A bradley with its missiles is a marked threat against even a MBT its just thats not its role it was designed for. You also have all of the infantry its supporting and they should have quite a few ATGM on them and if its part of an assault they will have their own tanks in the spearhead. The bradley are just there to babysit the squishies. If you are concentrating on attacking it you are wasting your time.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if they have enough tow-2b they will rock

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >russians use flares, magnesium bombs and searchlights when fighting in the dark
    >Ukies get good to great night vision equipped vehicles that have 1-3km weapon range

    Sounds unfair.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is this lardass sperging out about a topic he doesn't know jack shit about

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's a chinless alt-right contrarian, nothing new.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he's not a leftist?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He's one of these "it's ok guys, I can spew far-right racism and disinfo since I'm actually a leftist!" like Tim Pool and Andy Ngo.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You should turn around, buddy.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No he’s a right winger from the start, got arrested once trying to get Ann Coulters autograph.

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

          You should turn around, buddy.

          Nah he’s right retard

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >year 2023
          >implying there's any difference between those

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he's not a leftist?

        He's one of these "it's ok guys, I can spew far-right racism and disinfo since I'm actually a leftist!" like Tim Pool and Andy Ngo.

        No he’s a right winger from the start, got arrested once trying to get Ann Coulters autograph.
        [...]
        Nah he’s right retard

        moron
        i
        g
        g
        e
        r

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is the most (You) thing I've seen today

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because he was wrong about something, got corrected, couldn't deal with it and is now desperately trying to prevent ego death. It's generally something you see with highly narcissistic people.
      It seems to be a common trait with simps for Russia in the west, extreme narcissism. This war is going to break a lot of minds.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >trying to prevent ego death
        How do I help euthanize his ego.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's right tho
        Are you projecting?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How is it convoluted? IFV is meant to transport and support infantry. Tank is not meant to transport infantry. How difficult is it to grasp?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >IFV
    Not what it’s there for. It’s there to rape BMP and infantry. Maybe two piece a tank it accidentally runs into in a dark sunflower field.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't you proving his point by autistically sperging out about it? The point is that tanks are the line that can't be crossed yet we already are sending vehicles that for all intents and purposes are already tanks in th eyes of literally everyone who's not a nerd.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >4 ATGM
    thats op as fuck. Not fucking fair.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >giving the time of day to self-avowed Internet Contrarian Guy

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How effective do you think it'd be in a battle against Russian armour?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How effective do you think it'd be in a battle against Russian armour?
    Can you stop being retarded? We've told you every fucking time you post this thread. The Bradley *has* been in battle against Russian armor. In Gulf War 1 It utterly recked Iraqi T72's. Bradleys had more tank kills than the Abrams did.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Can Dennis stop being Dennis?
      can he, indeed?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bradley has better optics and FCS. It outmatches the t-72 by far. It’s funny how American IFVs are more lethal than the majority of soviet tanks

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Bradley is a tank and seeing there are already US tanks in Ukraine we should start sending Abrams ASAP.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't this the tank the national guard rammed into the Davidian compound?

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The battle hardened Ukranians vs 500,000 new MOBIKS front is coming! Glory to Christ!

    the Ukranians also have the sample set of every NATO weapon!!! It will be glorious, 5 different types of tanks grinding the intestines out of Russians anuses before charging off to fire buck shot directly into Russian trenches!

    This is the one where future generations will envy and hate us on /K today

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hate to burst your bubble, but Ukrainians are at war with an army that outnumbers them 1x3 to 1x7 and can rely on decades of Soviet stocks, even if those stocks are poorly maintained, pilfered or partially smuggled out.
      Their performance is impressive, but I doubt they are having a fun time fighting for their freedom.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Ukrainians are actually, as Igor Doompost says yesterday, keeping their reserves intact and not in the fray, hundreds of thouands of men, 3 - 4 Corps, not fighting but experienced men and just training. They are in fact using new units just trained in the West and Territorial Army in Bakhmut and Soledar, rotating them out for other new units. The situation is far rosier than you thinl.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't seen such concentrated pride in being a retard since my years in academia.
    Let me guess, this guy is a "respected geoopolitical analyst" who also failed to predict the current war in Ukraine and writes for a major news outlet.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Political science is all about learning in detail the rules of a game from thirty years ago, whose rules change yearly.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well given it'll have a full tank of unadultered fuel, properly stored and matched ammo, working armor and trained crew it's already way ahead.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has an intergrated laser designator that acts a range finder and gps designator. It doesn’t even have to fire a shot. It could sit 1-3 km away in the dark with thermals on that are sensitive enough to capture a 1 degree change in heat and just call in for support. It can integrate with javelin anti tank squads and himars to kill whatever it encounters.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Should I put a sign on the side that says, 'this is not a tank please dont shoot at it' in sixteen languages?"

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gonna be eventually blown up but so does everything in war

    The biggest value of this system would be the optical system.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No Air Conditioning

    Primarily used in Deserts

    Its fucking trash, always has been always will be.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we should abandon the "tank" nomenclature altogether and adopt a JSDF-like naming convention:
    >Bradley troop transport tractor
    >Abrams gun tractor
    >Paladin artillery tractor

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tractor?
      Tanks are 戦車, sensha.
      戦 - war, battle
      車 - car, vehicle
      https://jlptsensei.com/learn-japanese-kanji/%E8%BB%8A-sha-kuruma-car/

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    His job is to sit around and tweet about news stuff it’s not a big ask to check Wikipedia and use the right term

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He is right but it doesn't mean anything, ultimately it's just another form of pedantry.
    People view sending Leopard 2 and BMP-1 very differently, even if they are technically both tanks in the broad sense.
    Hell people view sending T-72s and Leopard 2s very differently and those are both MBTs.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    it's because we didn't gatekeep tank with Armored Fighting Vehicle.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit I had to steal this from reddit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      GO BACK AND TELL THAT REDDITOR AIR AND NAVAL UNITS DONT FUCKING COUNT

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tracey, who thinks highly of himself, says and IFV/AFV/SPG is a tank
    >gets mocked for it
    >goes on a 17 hour damage-control/cope spergout
    lol. lmao even.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It gets worse

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >calling others smug and pedantic
      staggering lack of self awareness

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Brad detects and identifies vatnik force from 5km away with superior sensors
    >share info to friendlies
    >lob TOW to launch T-whatever turret into low earth orbit
    >chew up everything else with autocannon

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A not-tank for a not-war

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To kill not-people

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, that's a tank

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