What made it so successful? Is/was the TOW really just that much better than other atgms?

What made it so successful? Is/was the TOW really just that much better than other atgms? What was stopping say the British or germs from just slapping an ATGM on their IFV and enjoying a nice little tank buster?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's inferior to the gavin 🙂

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The only people who call it that are gays and neverserved larpers. Everyone who's used one knows the 113 blows.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Fact. There's constantly diesel and hydraulic fluid sloshing around under the floorboards like a ship's sump.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that's not saying much when the same could be said if 99% of armored vehicles

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Everything designed today has too much useless expensive junk that's just going to get destroyed by the same missile.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ideal terrain for a FLIR equipped tankbuster in competent hands against an incompetent foe. Honestly the US could have replaced them all with TOW humvees and done just as well.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It fought Iraqis

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It fought. It succeeded. The Iraqis had modern soviet gear in the early 90s. Nothing you say can take away the glory that Bradley has earned

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not really. We now have extensive evidence that "modern soviet gear" is vastly inferior dogshit. The real rating of the Bradley would be how it performs against other western platforms.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It was great against the equipment it was designed and intended to be great against. That's the definition of success.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >modern soviet gear
          doesn't mean much 30 years on in the era of post-modernist warfare.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The iraqis had export variants of the T-72 and homemade “assad babil” tanks. They also were somehow unable to hit more than 1 bradley with the 125mm gun

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Turns out that bradley was presumably hit by a bmp-1.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the Republican Guard held their ground to annihilation in the face of overwhelming force. The 1st Guards Tank Army routed in the face of one dude firing AT4s from a humvee. Russia has never actually been better at war than Iraq.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ah yes, the famous 'export model' issue that always saves the face of all soviet equipment- Let's forget Soviet pilots getting assblasted by the Israelis and that their T-72s were more modern than the Ural or plain B that most ruskies were using.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By this logic fagner is an elite force because they stomp central african rebels with su25 strikes

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There is no metric where the Bradley is a failure. It absolutely wrecked the enemies it was designed for. It’s by far the most successful western IFV to date. I’m sorry if that’s not what you wanted to hear

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            its the most successful western ifv by nature and im not calling it a failure but "so successful" is ridiculous. It has not been tested in peer combat so its "success" is negligible. and I forgot about it until now but the Namer is far, far better

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Nothing has been tested in peer combat. It doesn’t exist. The Bradley is by far the most battle tested western IFV, nothing else even comes remotely close

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Namer sucks. It’s fuck huge, slow, and will never see service outside of Isreal. It’s a purpose built coin APC that would get busted open by Bradley’s TOW 2B. It’s pretty embarrassing that you didn’t know that

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                lol what TOW it has trophy. You want your infantry to survive... right? So they can kill the tanks? Namer does this better than anything else. I dont care if its slow and huge because going fast is what gets you killed

                Nothing has been tested in peer combat. It doesn’t exist. The Bradley is by far the most battle tested western IFV, nothing else even comes remotely close

                thats my point. Nothing has been tested so whats the point in making a thread talking about the amazing Bradley and how successful it is

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Namer is basically the result of building an IFV you never intend to ship out of your own borders, so there are practically zero restrictions on its weight. The thing is twice the weight of a Bradley and is actually heavier than the goddamn Puma, which itself borders on being a light tank.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The weight issue is an issue for the us but we are talking about the west as a whole here. Now that I think about it it really depends on whatever countries doctrine because these two ifvs are pretty radically different and are built for completely different wars

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You want your infantry to survive... right? So they can kill the tanks?
                Infantry fight dismounted. If they're still in the APC when its being attacked you're under an ambush and that's a bad time.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Namer is shit. It is a slow useless pig only good for killing Palestinian children.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you think modern day Russia is capable of beating 1990s Iraq?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not him, but no

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        american armor out-ranged ALL iraqi armor by like 50% plus thermals, something iraqis had ZERO off, let alone night optics. the game was rigged from the start.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you’re stuff was too good
          >stop calling it good

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So did the warrior IFV and it didn’t have anywhere close to the successes the Bradley had. Not a single Iraqi tank was killed by the warrior

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Good god this guy is obsessed with the fucking warrior what the fuck is wrong with you. Literally every day this is posted.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yea it’s a really good IFV

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Look at all those little cope blocks stuck on it because they are so weak kek

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What was stopping say the British or germs from just slapping an ATGM on their IFV and enjoying a nice little tank buster?

    UK had MILAN equipped warriors. operating next to Swingfire equipped dedicated ATGM carriers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I guess the Milan didn’t stack up to the tow

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Milan in most respects is a superior weapon. It was retired for Javelin and hellfire.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The TOW is far superior. You just need to look at their combat records

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bro just fuck off already, I can't go on an IFV thread without you kvetching about the fucking warrior, my fucking god all he said is the bongs had one and operationally it was superior, mostly because it didn't need LOS and could operate behind ridges.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Not needing LOS doesn't really matter when the missile is bad and can't hit anything. TOW #1.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's nice. Except Swingfire is exceedingly accurate and superior to TOW in virtually every regard.

                Milan #1
                Swingifre #2
                TOW #who cares about objectively mediocre stuff hanging around with soviet missiles?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, TOW #1 most combat proven, nobody can match it's record of kills.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                "More" combat-proof of it being mediocre shit inferior to Miland and Swingfire doesn't actually change it being objectively inferior. Deal with it, mutt.

                TOW is far superior. Especially RF top attack variants. TOW has an order of magnitude more kills on armor than Milan

                TOW is objectively inferior in virtually every regard, regardless of version. Kill numbers ar emeaningless. Milan has a superior kill rate on armor compared to TOW. Milan quality > TOW quantity. Deal with it, mutt.

                >My missile is better because it misses for no reason.
                Lmao cope and seethe more for me. TOW wins this thread.

                >my missile is better because it is inferior in all regards, yet used in larger numbers to feed the MIC

                LMAO, try project your coping and seething harder, mutt. TOW has lost this thread, just as it has lost every objective comparison to Milan ever made, being the mediocre system barely on par with slavshit that it is. Deal with it, mutt.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Having some features on paper makes up for never hitting anything at all.
                Why can't anyone but the USA design a second generation ATGM that actually works?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Being factually proven superior in virtually every regard in both practical testing and active combat means it's worse, my bullshit claim about some video says so!

                Why can't mutts design a second generation ATGM that isn't objectively proven inferior to Milan, and instead have to make up BS stories about it to make themselves feel better about their best being barely on par with garbage slavshit? It's kinda pathetic tbh.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I bet the stinger makes you seethe too. Sorry about that little Union we busted up

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >all this projection

                So given your desperate attempts to change the topic, I guess I can accept your de facto concession that TWO is objectively inferior to Milan in all regards and that you're just seething and coping about it now. Cool. Concession accepted. Bye.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >My missile is factually proven to be superior! That's why it hits trees instead of targets!

                Only American missiles are good. Sorry you had to hear.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >No actual Milans shown
                >miss from a SACLOS through obvious user error
                >some BS talk afterwards

                LMAO, literally nothing in that video changes that Milan is objectively superior than TOW in every regard.

                American missiles are mediocre. TOW is inferior to Milan. Sorry I had to burst your bubble, but I guess you'll jsut have to deal with it, mutt.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Milan has a superior kill rate on armor compared to TOW
                Source?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Same one as the supposed "Milan misses all the time" video. Same ones the seething TOW mutt is using.

                The US is stronger, militarily, than your favorite military

                And? Does that make TOW any less objectively inferior to Milan in every way? No? You're just seething so hard you're trying to change the topic? Aww, that's cute.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                kek the delusion

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                LMAO, the retardiation and denial of reality. Typical mutt behaviour when they're coping and seething about not having a valid argument.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US is stronger, militarily, than your favorite military

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You just need to look at their combat records

            Both have a combat record of besting anything they were ever pointed at. Milan also has a combat record of being a smaller, more mobile and more practical system under almost all circumstances. So no, combat records say that Milan is far superior. Deal with it, mutt.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              MILAN has an alarming tendency to just fucking miss for no reason, like in that SOF clip where multiple MILANs whiff swinging at the same target before a Javelin takes it. TOW has endless amounts of PrepHoleino behind it, even the shitty leftovers from the 90s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Uh huh. Cool story, bro. Milan is more accurate and reliable than TOW.

                >like in that SOF clip

                Sounds like bullshit to me.

                >TOW has endless amounts of PrepHoleino behind it

                And yet is objectively inferior to Milan. Having moe cherry-picked propaganda shots doesn't actually mean anything, mutt. Deal with it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >My missile is better because it misses for no reason.
                Lmao cope and seethe more for me. TOW wins this thread.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              TOW is far superior. Especially RF top attack variants. TOW has an order of magnitude more kills on armor than Milan

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    CV90 is better

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Most cv90s don’t have ATGMs and can’t carry enough ammo to lay down a base of fire. They’re great for popping lightly armored vehicles though

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's not much point to having them where they were made for, cause infantry would be the people who'dve been carrying them in dense forest treelines and the CV90 would just end up with redundant weapons

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Doctrine mostly. The Warrior was just a battle bus and the recon role of the Bradley was done by the Scimitar and it's cute cadre of frens. So Warriors basically never saw an iraqi tank while the Scimitar was plinking at them daily and the Striker was found to be very effective at turning T-62 commanders into the very first iraqi astronauts since a single swingfire was pretty much a confirmed kill.

    If you remember the A-10 blue on blue the Scimitars involved were in the middle of engaging a T-55 with 30mm at the time when they were 30mm'd themselves.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bradley’s did their own recon. 2 recon Bradleys out searching for a friendly element that lost radio contact ran into a platoon of t-72s and killed 2 of them while suffering no damage

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Propaganda.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What was stopping say the British or germs from just slapping an ATGM on their IFV

    Milan says hi, you dumb shit.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that the USA fights with full combined arms, good communications and intel and full logistics more than anything.

    Bradley isn't that much different from other NATO IFVs. The winning team gets a much better KDR than the losing team.

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