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?
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?
It's inferior to the gavin 🙂
The only people who call it that are homosexuals and neverserved larpers. Everyone who's used one knows the 113 blows.
Fact. There's constantly diesel and hydraulic fluid sloshing around under the floorboards like a ship's sump.
that's not saying much when the same could be said if 99% of armored vehicles
Everything designed today has too much useless expensive junk that's just going to get destroyed by the same missile.
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.
It fought Iraqis
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
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.
It was great against the equipment it was designed and intended to be great against. That's the definition of success.
>modern soviet gear
doesn't mean much 30 years on in the era of post-modernist warfare.
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
Turns out that bradley was presumably hit by a bmp-1.
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.
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.
By this logic gayner is an elite force because they stomp central african rebels with su25 strikes
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
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
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
Namer sucks. It’s frick 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
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
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
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.
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
>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.
Namer is shit. It is a slow useless pig only good for killing Palestinian children.
Do you think modern day Russia is capable of beating 1990s Iraq?
Not him, but no
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.
>you’re stuff was too good
>stop calling it good
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
Good god this guy is obsessed with the fricking warrior what the frick is wrong with you. Literally every day this is posted.
Yea it’s a really good IFV
Look at all those little cope blocks stuck on it because they are so weak kek
>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.
I guess the Milan didn’t stack up to the tow
Milan in most respects is a superior weapon. It was retired for Javelin and hellfire.
The TOW is far superior. You just need to look at their combat records
Bro just frick off already, I can't go on an IFV thread without you kvetching about the fricking warrior, my fricking 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.
Not needing LOS doesn't really matter when the missile is bad and can't hit anything. TOW #1.
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?
Nah, TOW #1 most combat proven, nobody can match it's record of kills.
"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 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 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.
>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?
>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.
I bet the stinger makes you seethe too. Sorry about that little Union we busted up
>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.
>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.
>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.
>Milan has a superior kill rate on armor compared to TOW
Source?
Same one as the supposed "Milan misses all the time" video. Same ones the seething TOW mutt is using.
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.
kek the delusion
LMAO, the moroniation and denial of reality. Typical mutt behaviour when they're coping and seething about not having a valid argument.
The US is stronger, militarily, than your favorite military
>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.
MILAN has an alarming tendency to just fricking 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 /k/ino behind it, even the shitty leftovers from the 90s.
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 /k/ino behind it
And yet is objectively inferior to Milan. Having moe cherry-picked propaganda shots doesn't actually mean anything, mutt. Deal with it.
>My missile is better because it misses for no reason.
Lmao cope and seethe more for me. TOW wins this thread.
TOW is far superior. Especially RF top attack variants. TOW has an order of magnitude more kills on armor than Milan
CV90 is better
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
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
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.
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
Propaganda.
>What was stopping say the British or germs from just slapping an ATGM on their IFV
Milan says hi, you dumb shit.
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.