AC means being cool, being cool means comfort, comfort means being relaxed, relaxed means drowsiness, drowsiness means youll fall asleep. Sorry that's a no go.
@@guiterrorist The US had demobilized after WWI while European countries kept their arms race going. In 39 the US had a 4th rate army, coming after Romania. I see no shame in this, just the opposite as the country had two large oceans protecting it and was busy building and growing. Marshall was sworn in as COS september 1st 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland. This was a signpost that the US were preparing for war. It was also understood that the first battles wouldn't favor green troops and that they would take some beatings at the beginning like at Kasserine. A German attaché posted in washington during the late 30s would have reported the US as militarily irrelevant . In my opinion Yamamoto understood the war potential of the US. It wasn't a matter of means but of focus and motivation.
@@mikecimerian6913 it makes me remember the Iwo Jima Movie when the officers prota seays he saw how the americans were building cars and trains and was right about to fear an enemy with those industrial capabilities.
@@mikecimerian6913 agree with the concept, but just to point out almost all of the European powers demilitarised in the interwar period. Part of the reason chamberlain appeased was to buy some time to rearm the nation
I love this movie, but after 2 deployments to Baghdad as an Infantry Bradley driver and dismount I love the Bradley even more. It was almost perfect for our needs in Baghdad. We got that thing with it's track turning capability through some of the tightest streets in the city.
I was actually asking about this in my comment above; doesn’t the US and the army personnel love this thing? I’ve heard Navy Seals on podcasts talk about how great they were. Seems like a troop carrier that also had some heavy weaponry on it is a good thing.
personally, I do believe Bradley in a great weapon in terms of fighting against terrorist. It's large, it's comfortable, it has a lot of ammunition, and the most important it has air-condition. However, bradley migh not fit perfectly in the roll of fighting against the soviet, which is what it's designed for. It is too large in terms of size, too expensie in terms of cost and too weak when facing the widly-equipped advanced rocket laucher, 30mm,100mm and tank gun in the soviet army. So this should leave yourself to decide.
@Idk bro well, the thing is, if the cold war turned into a hot war, Bradley need, and have to at least hold the attack from the enemy's IFV's , which include 100mm gun, 30mm automatic cannon 14.5mm machine gun and some RPG-7 equipped by the infantry. If a Bradley can't even defend against that, then Bradley won't be a good IFV and shouldn't be in the battlefield because it can't even transporting the troop safely into the battlefield and moving forward with the tank, which is the whole point of the existence of the IFV itself.
@Idk bro By the way, during the cold war era, soviet always has a way larger tank fleet than NATO. So this means if the wat actually has happened, one Bradley has a very high chance to not only faces enemy's IFV, but also main battle tanks by themselves ONLY. This also should put into consideration.
@Idk bro well, to be fair, T-55 and T-62 aren't that obsolete consider that the NATO forces operated M-60 and Leopard 1 during the 80s, which is basically the same level as the above two. Besides, they also received upgrade includes better armor, new site and better gun, which is known as T-55m and T-62m series as of today. So they aren't that obselete. Also, the amount of these old tanks only is about half of the entire soviet fleet. Soviet also has a huge amount of more advanced T-72, T-80 and T-64, which is roughly 20,000, still way more than the Leopard2A4 and M1 with 120mm gun that NATO has in the 80s. So your statement about NATO has an upper hand on soviet is wrong. Also, the reason that Russia still operates T-62 series even today isn't because they don't have enough advanced tank. No, they have a huge, yes, HUGE piles of T-72 and T-80 in stock. The main reason is because it's cost-effective. The operation cost of T-62 is way cheaper than the T-72, T-80 and T-90 and it performance is enough to deal with terriost and polar bears. It's really not they can't swtich to newer tank. It's because it's enought to fulfil the role.
As El Presidente Chimichanga I declare we will nationalize the exploitative capitalist salsa companies to repatriate the supply so I can jump naked into a deep pool of salsa at the presidential palace.
That's because they let Boeing engineers give some input and designed it to be a bigass long range bomber. If they let the Bradley committee design the B52 it would also be a dive bomber, a VTOL, and amphibious
@@adamosterstrand3057 The "35" stands for how many roles it can fill. It's a VTOL fighter, strike fighter, light bomber, flying battleship, entrenchment tool, cargo plane, spy plane, and mobile a super sonic troop transport all rolled into 1 machine. The only problem is for the price of 1 F-35 they could just build 35 other planes to do every other job and still have enough left over to just pay the enemy troops to give up without putting up a fight.
ironically , many said this exact same thing about the A-10 Thunderbolt II " Warthog" which served , what , 4 decades ? the Bradley ,however , is not the Warthog. smh, this video was funny & I didn't know the preposterous feature bloat of this vehicle. Thanks!👍🏻⭐
Fun fact: In the modern day military acquisitions world, this movie is used as training material... as an example of how the acquisitions process is NOT supposed to work.
I'm working at a tech company. The general idea is the same, someone at the top gets an idea and everyone else has to figure out how to make it viable.
@@martinsvilands7334 the most impressive from that list would be the bouncing bomb. Though technically that was invented by an eccentric toff in his back garden.
Meanwhile in Australia: "Who designed this sub-machine gun?" "Some teenager illicitly manufacturing guns in his garage, sir." "Bloody excellent. Approve it for mass production!"
You forgot about the F22 to begin with. YF-23 Widow did better in all but 1 reguard, low speed manuvers... this is a high speed supersonic stealth jet. And they built the F-22 instead, which costs 4x as much for the exact same role.
Pretty much agree with the F-35 (because of the compromise for STOVL B-variant with the Marines and Royal Navy really screwing with the fuselage of the A- and C- variants), but regarding the replies below, the F-22 may not have been a bad choice over the YF-23, as much as I love Northop/McDonnnel Douglas. Aerial dogfights have been dismissed time and time (WWII - monoplanes too fast, pilots still get into melee; Korea - jets too fast, but nimble MiG-15s and F-86s still end up prevailing; Vietnam - there are missiles, but guns still end up back on F-4 fighters; even fourth-generation fighters such as the F-15 with its massive radar and BVR capabilities have had to fall back on their guns during engagements; that's why even advanced fourth-generation and fifth-generation fighters still have cannons), again, but countermeasures (chaff, flares) are getting better too, while technology (BVR missiles such as AAMRAMs) including counter-counter measures will always be subject to murphy's law. The F-22 was slightly less stealthy and fast as the YF-23 (those facts are true of course), but it can still supercruise given the powerful twin F119s and the fact that it also carried its weapons internally (aerodynamic advantage), which makes it a good interceptor (real top speed remained classified as well for quite a while). As well as an all-aspect air-superiority fighter with the much higher maneuverability thrust vectoring gave it. Plus there was no guarantee that the YF-23's costs would stay down should it have been chosen to advance, after all, the philosophy of fifth generation fighters is - fewer, more expensive, stealthy aircraft. Lockheed Martin raised hte price on the F-35 after it advanced further in the JSF, why wouldn't Northrop do it for their stealth aircraft? Look at how the prices soared for the B-2. I'm not gonna defend the price, I'll admit it's still pretty pricey, but even with its high maintenance costs on top of the price, it's still a much better than the F-35A, which aside from stealth pretty much is a bunch of really good avionics stuffed into a terrible fuselage with rocketing costs (it's a good strike aircraft at least). Initially an additional factor for the F-22 over the YF-23 was its potential for the U.S. Navy with the short-takeoff possibility thrust vectoring offered (but of course they never took it and now are going for the F-35C).
To be fair, people even engineers tend to get comfortable and go down the same road over and over. Sometimes it's needed that someone pushes the envelope forcing the engineers and designers to think outside of the box. Pentagon wars is of course an example of how bad this can go, but sometimes you shouldn't just take what the engineer presents as the first solution. I work in a different field, business intelligence. But many times we have been presented with a run-of-the-mill solution and only by pressing and pushing the programmers to do things they at first said couldn't be done.
@@nikolajwinther5955 Seriously if you open by saying that to engineers, "we want you to think outside the box/ innovate" let them do it, politics are bad enough in regard to these projects
"Of course steel is much heavier than aluminum. So it won't go as fast." The way he says it is pitch perfect. Like he's pointing at a picture book drawn in crayon.
You are aware the m113 The troop Carrier used for most of the Vietnam war and still in service with several Nations today was constructed out of aluminum right
Kinda sounds how tanks in 40k Warhammer works. What 3 cannons not enough, 2 turrets and 2 side guns not enough? Lets add another turret and 3 more cannons and 2 more forward guns
The crazy part is that the Bradley is a success. It was largely developed to counter the Soviet BMP vehicles (Боевая Машина Пехоты - (lit. infantry combat vehicle) and during Desert Storm in 1991, there were over 2000 Bradley's deployed to Iraq and only 3 were disabled by enemy. Meanwhile the Bradley destroyed more enemy vehicles combined than the M1 Abrams throughout the entire war. So this "troop carrier that doesn't carry troops" was actually a success... in a manner of speaking. I vastly prefer the engineering behind the M-1117 myself. In fact I'd rather be in that OR a Stryker/MRAP cougar class of vehicle if I had to move into a combat location... I understand Bradleys are NOT a comfy ride. But the Bradley has earned its place of honor among American fighting vehicles.
Its true, the bradley absolutely slapped when it got deployed in iraq. This movie is a comedy about government spending and has almost no basis in reality
@@LabiaLicker ODS is a perfect example because it showed that the bradley performed exactly the way it was expected to. I mean what do you suggest, 1v1's?
- Engineer - General it's a troop carrier, not a tank. what next are you gonna ask ? to make it fly ? - General - Is it possible to add wings ? - Engineer - ....
I'm an Engineer for the DoD. I can't tell you how much money I personally have wasted designing something just to be told it will never see production for something I said was stupid at the time or for some stupid revision. I show this to everyone because it's true lol.
Have you seen the CV90 or other Swedish designs. Perhaps America shouldnt let the Generals design what they want, it is military equipment, not a pizza.
The only thing wrong with this is that half the idiotic decisions being made by clueless generals in this movie were actually made by clueless congressmen. There was a lot of cluelessness to go around.
That's my question about this; I can understand why politicians are clueless, but men who have "been there" and "done that"? Wouldn't their worse offense in the cluelessness department would be having their judgement dictated and limited by the lessons of the particular wars they participated in as a subaltern/field grade officer?
@@bezukaking6860oh believe me, generals know very little about gear. Maybe it's the lack of interest, maybe the generation gap or the DoD turns their brains into soup
@@buckplug2423 I do, but I still lean towards generation gap (how you word it), as (for example) the French strategy of Attaque à outrance - the one that got so many men killed (red pantaloons notwithstanding) - was based on lessons (albeit somewhat misread) from the Franco-Prussian War in which many of the most senior officers (von Kluck (1 Armee), von Bulow (2 Armee), von Hindenburg (8 Armee and Ober Ost), von Mackensen (8 Armee and HG Mackensen) and de Maunoury (6 Armee) come to mind, all having been around 23 in that conflict while Mackensen was 21) had a part as subalterns. The French returned to the Napoleonic tactic of bayonet charges because their mitrailleuses (early machine guns that were less convenient than Gatling Guns) didn't preform well. I really don't think the gun can be blamed for this, as Marechal Mac-Mahon apparently didn't know they existed until one was rolled passed him at Sedan; I could only imagine how many of the divisional mitrailleuse battery gunners actually knew what to do with them. The gun wasn't all that bad either but it was extremely situational, inflicting 8,000 casualties on the 18,000 man Prussian Gardekorps (the infantry elements of it) in 20 minutes at Gravelotte. Nevertheless, the specifics and nuances were ignored for a convenient and overarching lesson; the pas de charge. As for the DoD, have you heard of the case of Gen. Sir Redvers Buller, VC? (PS: sorry I got carried away, cheers though)
@@buckplug2423 He was a distinguished field grade officer, earning a VC as a colonel (maybe LTC, the British are a bit fuzzy on this stuff) in 1879 against the Zulus while serving under another VC (and future Field Marshal), Sir Henry Evelyn Wood. In '81 he was Chief of Staff to Sir Henry when they fought the Boers for the first time. Head of Intel in Egypt against nationalist rebels there in '82 (under LTG Garnet Wolseley, future Field Marshal and Viscount), winning a knighthood. Got married, spent some time in command of a brigade in the Sudan, winning the rank of major-general (brigadier/brigadier-general didn't exist at this time; it bounces in and out of existence in the British Army every once in a long while) and participated in the Gordon Relief Expedition of '85. This was all well and good, but his next assignments are more important for my point (in relation to yours): he snooped around in Ireland for a bit in '86 on government orders, became Quartermaster-General to the Forces in '87, promoted Adjutant-General to the Forces in '90 and lieutenant-general in '91 (division rank). Was in line for C-in-C of the Army in '95 but election happened and Field Marshal Lord Wolseley (FM since last year) got it. Full general in '96. GOC, Aldershot Command (a corps command) in '98. Here comes the clincher: chosen to command the Natal Field Force (a corps) in '99 when the Second Boer War began. Apparently said he should be fired if he couldn't win with the troops he had upon seeing the list. Divided his forces into a very odd 17,000/15,000/2,000 for operations. All three columns beaten within the span of a week at Colenso, Magersfontein, and Stormberg (reverse for chronological order) by the Boers. The British suffered 2,776 casualties to 308 Boers (236 were at Magersfontein). The casualties of the Highland Brigade (present at Magersfontein) caused public mourning in Scotland. 747 Highlanders were casualties (of which just under 1/2 were Black Watch), Major-General A. G. Wauchope, CB, was among the dead. The events would be known as Black Week. This stunning loss was and still is for the most part credited to Buller spending 13 years off of the field, mostly in staff positions (how I made the connection). Many of the men mocked him as "Sir Reverse Buller". whoops, got carried away. Cheers.
Fun fact: the guy who wrote and provided the information for pentagon wars not only lied the entire way through the book, most of his credentials are also made up. Turns out, he was the one who had no idea what the actual vehicle was designed for in the first place, nor did he have any idea what the tests being done were trying to demonstrate.
It does highlight the insanity of US bureaucracy but yeah the whole point is this group of "reformers" (basically old rich people) who wanted to make men fight like it was the 1920's again. Low technology very cheap vehicles and throw men at the problem until it's gone. They used various methods like propaganda movies to convince people and were basically a pain in the ass to the military for a while.
I was a mechanic on the Bradley for 15 yrs. Early during my career I had a young scout touting how great the Bradley was and how bad ass it would be in combat. I reached into my tool box and pulled my ball peen hammer out. I smashed it into the front access panel. He yells: WTF man! You chipped the paint! I looked at and said: Fuck your paint. You should be more worried about the wicked dent I just put into your aluminum armor with a hammer. Imagine what 50 cal armor piercing rounds or BMP rounds will do to this thing in combat. Yeah that kid just shut up. I don't remember him bragging after that. Later I did 3 tours in Iraq. I saw first hand how badly that aluminum armor did its job. IED's were the number one killers of Bradley's hands down.
@Bad Cattitude The Bradley saved lives more than it lost them. But it's made of aluminum and magnesium to keep it lighter. The problem with that is that it's vulnerable to hits from below. This isn't a secret as the insurgents knew it all too well. Another problem is once they are on fire they melt down to the point of becoming shoe boxes. I have seen it personally. And yes the Bradley's had a high kill ratio during the gulf war, it's mostly due to the Bradley's optics being far superior to the Soviet era tanks Iraq had back then. That is no longer the case for any enemy with modern armor or improved and updated armor. While the Bradley does have new optics and target acquisition systems. They are still very vulnerable to any weapons that have even last generation range and destructive force. Aluminum is great for weight savings, but total shit for stopping shells and missiles. I won't say the Bradley can't dish out punishment, because it has. But what I am saying as a guy who has seen many Bradley's destroyed and recovered them. The Bradley needs to be retired and a new platform is needed to fill its role. I know full well what is riding here when US troops go to war in the Bradley in pros and cons.
"A troop carrier that can't carry troops. A reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance. And a quasi-tank that has less armor as a snow blower, but with enough firepower to take out half of DC" And it will become a legend.
I's not a troop carrier it's an IFV like the BMP. big difference. the Bradley's reputation was built on the corpses of iraquis and hulls of iraqi tanks. Will Russian tanks and Conscripts add to its reputation. We wait.
@@mr6johnclark well, we've waited and the answer is a resounding NO. Very unfortunate for the poor ukrainians saddled with them, and they got the more modern version with all the bells and whistles to boot.
@@mr6johnclark offensive* Counter offensive means there was an enemy offensive which you defeated and are now launching an offensive of your own before the enemy can regroup their forces. Yes, the offensive has barely started and already they've lost dozens of Bradley, Leopards and MRAPs (and BMPs and T tanks which nobody mentions. Even M113s) with nothing to show for it. In fact, it's kind of funny that they've had more success in the most recent week when they shifted tactics back to infantry storming operations without vehicles than they did for two weeks prior with the Leopards and Bradleys.
@@MatoVuc as to losses? its war what did you expect? Tho it's far more humiliating for you know russians to leave perfectly servicable vehicles to be towed away by farmers and move the goal post when they failed to you know capture the capital of ukraine the first few days in.
Only that the same sh*t happens on a daily basis in all of America's major corporations. The problem is not the government, the problem is government modeled after the private sector.
Since when do you go bankrupt in business? As long as you are big enough and pay enough contributions to corrupt politicians, you get a bailout. Where have you been the last 40 years? Not noticed, how corporate America has taken over???
What I love about this part of the movie: It shows the passage of time through pictures instead of text. The presidents portraits changing, the uniforms updating, the Generals getting promoted, the colonel balding. Subtleties like this are missing in modern movies.
Correction: missing in modern hype movies. You can still find subtlety and creativity in plenty of movies these days. Just gotta move away from the hype-train "blockbusters".
The diffrence is that even the 40k (or rather whoever came up with it before 41st) generalls were smart enough to not throw everything on one thing but make difftent versions. Yes one of this versions does carry an ICBM but still better than this.....
This didn’t age well. Through every conflict since it came into service, the features they are making fun off are what allows it to dominate on the battlefield.
His mission was finished. He no longer had any attachments left in the mortal world. His soul was finally free. After nearly 12 years of hell, he was finally at peace.
@@blazingbleezy668 It's actually the opposite. The M113 which is basically a turretless bradley with a shitty M2 Browning. As much as I love a M2 Browning, try going up against Tanks that can pen your Armor like paper. A light tank with a anti infantry and anti armor capabilities makes it a much much better Tank even without the TOW launcher a Bradley can go toe to toe with the BMP.
@@blazingbleezy668 The Bradley does everything it was designed to do. It can carry a squad of infantry into battle while being able to provide them fire support once they dismount, it protects them against light and heavy machine gun fire, it has excellent anti-tank capabilities, and it makes an excellent recon vehicle thanks to its electronics suite. The guy who wrote the book that this film was based on was of the firm belief that the M113 was the greatest vehicle ever produced and believed that the main thing we'd need to beat the Soviets in open war was to make all of our vehicles, including the A-10 Thunderbolt II, in a way that they had no electronics on them, i.e. no IFF, thermals, night vision, radar, and so on. Spookston has a video detailing many of the outright lies and half-truths of the movie if you're interested.
@@wsbchk_well: its turret spun out of control, they panicked and drove it against a big tree, and the crew left, as they didn’t want to wait for the finishing drone strike, artillery strike or whatever they assumed to be next… It’s not knocked out, but it’s abandoned and useless in it’s current state and location.
It didn't knock it out, but that's the M3 Bradley which is the improvement on the design and as closer to its original concept, not the M2 monstrosity that's featured here.
People seem to forget that the Bradley was supposed to serve as a replacement for the M113, instead it morphs into this IFV of doom that can destroy tonnes of shit but can neither carry more than 11 troops nor swim like its predecessor. Fast forward 33 years after the Bradley was introduced and guess what? The army has a Ground Combat Vehicle program to replace the M113 by 2018 with almost the EXACT same requirements as in 1958. Competitors include an MRAP derivative vehicle, a Tracked Stryker and exactly 60 years after the first proposed design.... a Turretless Bradley.
I just realized you said Ground Combat Vehicle. The GCV program was going to be a much larger vehicle with much more armor and fire power. You're talking about the program to replace the M113 for logistics, not the Bradley.
Michael Currier You mean the Bradley wasn't big and up gunned enough for them and now they want another AFV that isn't a tank but is supposed to kill tanks?
killer3000ad The GCV was canceled. Could you tell me why basically every single developed nation has an IFV with Bradley equivalent armor and weapons? Is the whole world wrong? Do you know much about IFVs in general?
Michael Currier Way to move the goalpost. My question was not why nations develops IFVs, but why anyone would want to develop anything that is way bigger or heavier than the Bradley that isn't a tank. In fact you shot yourself in the foot by saying "every single developed nation has an IFV with Bradley equivalent armor and weapons". Exactly that, a lot of nations use IFVs that are sensibly weighed and armed, so why did anyone think making an even bigger replacement for the Bradley which would be even heavier, with more firepower and armor, is a smart move. Please don't misrepresent my question so you can score internet points in youtube comments. But since the GCV has been cancelled, the point is moot now as it seems sensible heads prevailed there. Also I never accused the whole world of being wrong, but way to further put words in my mouth and misrepresent me. I tell one thing's for sure kid, the whole world hates the Bradley. As an international seller it's a colossal failure with only two nations the US and the KSA operating it, and I am pretty sure the KSA's Bradley's were paid for on the taxpayer's dime. Lets look up how many nations uses the Russian BMP-3 besides Russia. Oh look 10!
General: Why can't it be a scout? Me: It is a troop carrier. General: Why doesn't it have a bigger gun? Me: It is a troop carrier. General: Why can't you fit the extra ammo? Me: It is a "troop" carrier. General: What if it were amphibio- Me: Because it is a TROOP CARRIER! Still comes out as a light tank. [EDIT] Still comes out as a fighting vehicle.
Point of fact on the amphibious part: If they'd of kept it as just a troop carrier, making it swim would of been trivial. Because it may well of been buoyant enough once buttoned up entirely on its own.
Maybe they could've made several versions, one as a troop carrier, one as a recon vehicle (and either make a separate amphibious version or make the troop carrier amphibious).
Indeed. That is why so important to have bosses with ample practical experience and engineering knowledge when designing thes things. Otherwise, camels arise.
This movie and the book it was based on were written by a guy who basically tried to make a career out of taking down Bradley as a project because he was linked to a wider group of Pentagon insiders adjacent to the fighter mafia, who were critical of the kind of new tech-heavy weapons systems being procured by the military during the 60s, 70s and 80s. The makers of the film make its arguments about the Bradley seem very convincing to a civilian audience, but they leave out a lot of key context and details about what kind of vehicle the Bradley was meant to be, what happened during its development and how successful it ended up being.
@@cube_2593 which ended in USA having top resistant and accurate firepower IFV +also top fighters in the sky. All interconnected =key advantage in finding & capturing targets (+prevent own Friendly fire). So please throw away all dumb ideological wars, it is COOPERATION, as usual, what wins upon greedy chRussia-installed dictators, again trying "new world lie order".
@@DamplyDooThis movie is based on a book by a man called Burton. In simple terms, Burton was heavily critical of the designs of several military vehicles, specifically the Bradley tank shown here. However, he based his criticisms on rigged tests and a misunderstanding of the purpose of the vehicle's design. In his book, detailing his account of his arguments with military higher-ups during his "career", he makes himself out to be the sensible and well-meaning critic and everyone else in the miliary hierarchy as beaurocratic and unresponsive to criticism. However, due to lots of details I can't list here for brevity and context, he is not the smart amazing person he portrays in his book, and his arguments were dismissed for good reason. The tank he criticised was also extremely successful on the battlefield, and Burton purely focusses on and overblows any failure. It would be like criticising a car because it always crashed, but your only data comes from 2 car crash reports and not the 100 other incidents where the vehicle drives safely and no one is injured. However, due to the distrust of the government following the Vietnam War, lots of people were eager to listen to anyone critical of the US military heirarchy, and even though Burton's arguments were very flawed, people lapped it up due to the culture of the time. However, Burton and several of his like-minded colleagues have now moved on to other enterprises and haven't done any military work since. Burton even quit the military like a child once he was told to work on other projects, instead of the tank shown in the clip above. He didn't want to help, he wanted to be listened to and be hailed as a hero for redesigning a tank to be worse than it was before. But when no one listened he quit and wrote a book about his experiences, making himself out to be the hero. For one example of his sage wisdom (and I'm paraphrasing from his book here) he was asked to include a radar into a vehicle, to track other tanks. In response, Burton said "What if you use the radar and accidentally shoot refugees instead of an enemy tank? See? Radars are useless." No, I'm not joking. This is the calibre of criticism from this so-called "Reformer".
7:40 In that Genrals defence, there was a bradley in the first gulf war that got separated from its abrams, and found itself staring at an Iraqi T72. Those AT missile came in very handy, even if the first one they shot was a dud.
If you're an external contractor, the key is to - when the origination contract is drawn up - be explicit about the definition of features and charge a per diem for creep. Then, let them go ahead and hang themselves having you re-engineer it, since you make a fortune each time. Or, they'll learn their lesson quickly and allow you to stick with one sensible design.
@@NilesBlackX Yeah, don't guard against it. Guard yourself against it. Warn them, but if they go ahead, more money for you and if it sucks, you say "I told you so"
Its funny, because Soviet engineers must've gone through same hell when they were designing BMP-2 amphibious, rocket firing, auto canon shooting, scouting troop carrier. Later even more multi-multi role troop carrier BMP-3 which has an tank canon, auto canon and rocket launcher.
Yes, and on top of that, BMP-3 was developed from a chassis that was originally designed for a light-tank... Must have been a hell of a headache for the project engineers...
Finlandiaperkele Nyet, is Russian tenk. Is very stronk design yes?, it take big gun. But in all seriousness, the BMP 3 does work for its intended purpose, which is annihilating people with primitive stuff.
An Everyman But the point about BMP-3 was the fact that it has enough firepower to level a city block, yet it still carries troops and is amphibious, all the while being based on chassis that was never meant to carrying troops... Must have been hell of a thing to design....
Original BMP-1 which was ahead of decades or two of its time had been a hell to design rather than versions which were built upon it. Anyways, I have soft-spot for heavy IFVs rather than proper light ones like BTR series. Even though, BTR-90 and are becoming quite well armed, but rising costs are problematic and they risk to distance themselves from BTR-60 and that it was designed to do- to replace trucks with armor.
I was shown this in my Systems Engineering course by Lockheed Martin instructors. Very enthralling to have this perspective of the long, strenuous process to make progress in new technologies.
Ironically the whistle-blower at the center of this was part of the A-10 development team. Its actually a big reason why he was so offend by the Bradley.
no, because the A-10 is actually good. It does exactly what it's supposed to do: Close air support.... Then again it probably started out as a fax machine or something.
@@theghostinthemachine It was originally designed for the single purpose of destroying Soviet armor in the Fulda gap. Which is CAS, but a very specific form of CAS. It adapts to other CAS, but only against equivalent tech. Fortunately, the enemies we're fighting don't have sufficient tech to stop it very well. No modern military would let you get close enough to use the GAU cannon.
@@mzmadmike True... But then that would require them to be able to keep planes in the air, and we got the F-22 and that thing's OP as all hell. Plus it ain't fighting a modern military yeah? The A-10 is a damn good design though. Plus who says it needs to hit them with the gun? they got plenty of other options, and if you have heavy AA presence CAS is probably not going to be a thing anyway. Though the A-10 can certainly take a hit. Just saying it does it's job very well, and if you need to send CAS into airspace loaded with fighter aircraft and the like, with no escort? Someone already fucked up badly. Oh and also Iraq during the Gulf War. Not quite a fully modern army, but the A-10 tore their armor to pieces.
The Bradley was developed as an IFV from the start in response to the Soviet BMP-1 IFV. An IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) is a step up from an APC (Armored Personnel Carrier). The BMP-1 carried infantry, had gunports for the infantry to fire their AK's from the inside, had a turret with a 73mm gun, a 7.62mm machinegun and had an Anti-Tank Guided Missile Launcher. So, unsurprisingly, the US and other NATO nations wanted to match that.
@@deriznohappehquite The term "step up" is not very technical, I admit, but in the sense that an IFV is an AFV that isn't an MBT but has more combat capabilities than an APC while still carrying infantry...that's my point.
@@richardjames1812 I’d describe the difference as “an APC is designed to drop off infantry and then go home. An IFV stays with the infantry and provides support on the line of contact.”
@@deriznohappehquite I could go with that definition (though APC's don't "go home" they remain in the AO). So, sounds like the IFV is a "step up" then? Again, not a technical term, but suitable.
Yes it was always meant to be a fighting vehicle not an "armored taxi" the movie is historically inaccurate. Fun movie and funny but none of this movie is true.
Most of those were actually to the Iraqis - like at the Battle of Khafji the US military said that all 25 US deaths were due to friendly fire, but actually 14 were due to Iraqi SAMS and the other 11 to Iraqi artillery. Quite why they told that particular lie I do not know.
@@dewittbourchier7169 You say 14 Bradleys were lost to Surface-to-Air Missiles? SAMs? Anti-aircraft missiles? How? Where the Bradleys flying in the air?
@@samobispo1527 No I was saying most Bradleys were likely lost due to Iraqi military action and not friendly fire as the Battle of Khafji demonstrates the US military often labelled men killed by enemy action as killed by friendly fire.
Keep in mind this is a piece of drama, not the portrayal of actual events. And has been compressed to accentuate the problems with "design by committee" method. The original prototypes were already designed to have multiple configurations to include a scout, and anti-tank missiles, and cannons. However later in the design process was attempted to merge all into a one size fits all configuration. The success of that configuration is still hotly debated to this day.
"So they want a transport that doesn't carry men, and a scout that has a cannon as big as a tank on it..." "...and port holes..." "Oh GREAT! PORT HOLES! So the guys can shoot at whatever they can't hit with their cannon." LOL
0:55 "and features a 20mm cannon" *shows a M1919 .30 caliber (7.62 mm) machine gun* also, at 1:18, there's no hatch for the crew to access the gun, and the gun is fired with what looks like just a manual trigger, so someone would have to be lying on top of the vehicle to use the gun. the picture at 0:18 shows what looks more like a 20mm cannon though. also, just for the record, the Bradley was not supposed to be a direct successor to the M113, but was supposed to be a rival to the soviet bmp-2, which had a 30mm cannon and and anti-tank guided missile launcher. The Bradley design was also motivated by the soviet bmp-1, which had a 73mm (slower-firing) cannon and an anti-tank guided missile launcher.
@Magni56: I was wondering just how good the Marder 2A2A1 would've been as an alternate. I'm liking that Flexi-Armature mounted rear-gun, but needed to know if the Armour would've been as good? Or the Speed? Or the Floatation Rating without Attachable Pontoons? I liked it's layout, as well as what the Austrailians had done with M-113 ACAV, and the Israeli mod's to it with both the "Cow-Fencing" and Hard-Mesh Standoff Armour called: _'Zelda'_ , methinks? That, and the two extra Fuel Tanks on the back.
“But how did it end up with a turret” uhhhh because it was designed that way from the start? The Bradly was meant to be an IFV from day one (not a battle taxis as Burton lies), it was designed in response to the BMP.
It's a troop carrier.... With a cannon..... With an atgm to fight tanks.... But without the Armour to match.... Armour so weak 50cals can penetrate it from the sides... Made partially from aluminum. Oh you thought I was talking about the bradley? No it's the bmp, because turns out the two major powers came to the same conclusion for how an IFV should be.
@@accountname9506 Yup, you are most certainly right. Bradley was supposed to be an IFV from the start and it was always meant to have a turret - the book and in turn the movie aswell are full of lies and inconsistencies.
@@mhobson2009 There's a ten minute video by Spookston on this topic, with sources in the description. Here's the link - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gmuVYVREGgE.html
It started as a troop carrier but then Soviets unveiled the BMP-1 in the 60's and so they wanted their own counter for it. So they hijacked the Bradley project to get their own IFV out faster instead of designing a purpose-built vehicle from scrap.
As a guy who was roped into driving the damned thing for 3 months I'd just like to say that I truly, DEEPLY, hate that fucking thing and it's creators.....may they be sealed inside it while they roast in hell!
Well, nobody ever hearing about how disastrously useless the T-64's engine was outside of the Red Army certainly helped. Probably didn't comfort Chieftain crews. though.
***** To add to Magni 's points, the existing F-15, F-16 and F-4 (to name at least the American aircraft) airframes in service with the F-35's buyers are not getting any younger. Given the current advances in radar sensors, trading off some maneuverability for reduced RCS could very well be a worthwhile tradeoff in addition to not having your bird disintegrate in midflight theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/ Hmm, it seems that at least one pilot disagrees with Pierre Sprey. Is the protracted development of the F-35B worth a critical look? Yes. But will the finished product fare worse than the M2 Bradley? Almost certainly not.
Ten months after OP's post: Still not combat ready. Still loses dog fights. The Naval ships built to carry it, couldn't (because of on going "fixes") so are being retrofitting *after* having the ships built... And Magni must be involved or have stock... to continually perform P.R. for it.
Magni56 it shouldn't have been designed with vtol requirement, that's the biggest failure. What could it have been, if not for that horrible disaster of an idea. Designed for a proper carrier.
@@peterdonlon2083 About tall enough for someone who's 5'9" max to sit up straight. Add gear and helmet, plus extra weapons like Javelins and whatnot, and it starts getting very cramped. Add to that the fact that we're often in the back for up to 12 hours at time. I'd rather walk, jump, or get to the objective any other way. It started out as a troop carrier, but in the end that was clearly their last priority.
@@andrewb325 This film does oversimplify it. This guy in real life was in a group called 'the reformers' who thought the military was buying weaponry too expensive and few. Whilst he was right the Bradley was underarmoured and overarmed, it was always designed as an IFV rather than APC he just misread documents. The reformers also held beliefs like it's better to have 2000 M60 Pattons than 500 M1 Abrams. They didn't exactly get everything right
@@Connor-vj7vf They also felt launching pilots with no radar or anything decently advanced and nothing but a 30mm gun could kill tanks. When asked why no radar he basically replied “what you like killing refugees?” They called missiles high priced junk, these guys were ass backwards morons.
"I've been a Bird Colonel so long I'm growing feathers". This one hits home. My dad was Commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant (Army) in 1979. He was promoted to 1st LT after 3 months. He made Captain after 3 years. He made Major after 7 years of service in 1986. He retired in 1999 after 20 years of service as a Major. He was in the Artillery and after Desert Storm he had two options; 1. Go from full time Army, to part-time Army (Reserves), or 2. Go be a jailer at Fort Leavonworth. He took the Leavenworth job, but he wasn't happy about it. He retired and has a nice pension now. He works in Sports Medicine now. He's happy.
Good for the him! He earned it. Sad to see history repeat again with Obama cuts back in 2012. So many officers left behind or kicked out who had served honorably and courageously during GWOT.
It tickled me so much, seeing this movie, when the AMPV entered development phase in 2016 to replace the M113...based on a turretless Bradley. The colonel can rest easy that his dream came true 50 years later.
No it didn't his Bradley had all the ammunition stored externally is Bradley had blowout panels his Bradley was a death trap Burton was a whiny baby who freaked out because he didn't get his way the army was the one who entered into the joint live fire test program Congress did not force them
Every single piece of equipment that the US military has used since WW2 had to be a compromise, the army is in the business of fighting wars and if they needed a scout vehicle and a personal carrier but only had money for on Le then guess what? They are gonna get someshit that can do both but doesn't really Excel at any of it. Almost all hardware platforms in the US army are repurposed designs....grow up
You can mark the video as "Not Interested" by (I'm on Android) tapping the three dots on the side of the thumbnail and selecting that option. It seems sometimes RU-vid understands and stops recommending it, and sometimes it just does what it wants, but I like to think I'm actually exerting some level of control over my feed by doing so.
Even if I do like the Bradly. I love the framing of the story from going from a upgraded M113 to effectively a light tank/tankette with troops on the side.
@@pendraco2000 no the general's in this movie are no where near real. The mission creep was cause by congress just as much as by general's Right from the start the army told congress the only way to protect the Bradley from rpgs was to make it as heavy as m 1
I will say again, the movie is BS, pushed by people that thought we should have kept the M48 and the F-5A was the perfect fighter. These people never understood what the AVF was going to do to manpower and inventory numbers. THINK ABOUT Iraq 1990/91 w/o M1s, M2s, F-15s, F-16s, F-117S, F-111s. Or Germany 1989 vs. the WP. M48s against T-64s, T-72s and T-80s. If these people had their way thermal night sights would never have been invented much less mounted on US Army AFVs. That's what these "reformers", living in 1970s wanted. And having done three years on the Army staff I can tell you the procurement process doesn't work like this. The movie is based on a book by a USAF LTC who had no background in ground combat. Who has been caught lying in said book a number of times. BTW, both the M2 and the M3 carried TOW launchers. For an even better approach I suggest going to "Task and Purpose" and watch his video on IFVs and his comments about the "Unicorn" IFV. Or Spookston and LazerPig.
So what you have here is a fallout game with no choices, limited character customization, limited rpg elements, a mass effect dialogue wheel, voiced cut scenes, a tower deference mini game, fuckable companions straight out of bioware and two endings. This is what we're building?
+Natakupl That's also why Undertale came out and works. It's made by _1_ guy (code, music, graphics). No "can't you just" generals. He came up with an infantry transport vehicle, and did it. "What's your problem Smith? Not elegant enough for you?" EXACTLY Think small.
The Marines did this with the LAV for armored reconnaissance. But it was amphibious, and it had air conditioning. But no ports. And carried enough 25 mm ammunition to kill everyone in DC. Oh, and it had a 7.62 mm machine gun too. And a TOW missile variant. And an 81 mm mortar variant.
Reading into the depths of how the Bradley was outfitted, I think that the LtCol may have overexaggerated the issues surrounding the development of the Bradley. Most of the issues that increased the cost after the fact were survivability improvements, and LtCol Burton has made a point that he believes we shouldn't be using what he refers to as "high-priced junk" in military equipment. This junk as he so refers to, are things such as radar in planes, Electronic Countermeasures, and defensive armaments such as chaff and flares, and his "Blitz Fighter" design incorporates a gun, two engines, and a radio into a bathtub cockpit and nothing more. The idea that modern military aircraft be manufactured and deployed with no IFF, radar, stealth profile, or even something as simple as an ejection seat, goes to show how poor of a representation the movie is to reality.
Fuck the reformers. The so called "reformers" just want to go back to ww2 strategies and equipment. The "old guard", are just old gents using modern technologies and strategies. Who do you think would win a war?
The book this movie is based on was written be a full blown idiot that believed the m60 was the only tank the U.S army needed and the abrams was a pointless waste of money. The Bradley was not conceived in the way represented here at all, and functions as needed in its intended role in a constantly shifting military doctrine.
I feel that the movie left out the influence, on the Bradley design, of the intelligence about the capabilities of slightly older Soviet BMP-1 IFV, which US and sattelites met in battle during various proxy wars about the time the insistence on the first changes came. BMP-1 has a 76mm cannon, can fire Malyutka AT missiles and is amphibious. And can carry 8-6 troops.
BMP is more of an infantry fighting vehicle and less of an actual troop transport. Troop transports are really meant to carry a squad or more into battle, not trade shots with enemy scouts and light armor.
I want to say "in hindisght, what a clueless movie this is", but the Bradley had more tank kills than the Abrams even back in Desert Storm, so there's really no excuses
@Booze_Rooster Again, a IFV versus a tank. In a straight of Abrams or Leopold against a Bradley, Bradley loses 100%. Bradley performed so well for its role that it actually overachieved and became a tank killer.
@@pergys6991 not saying much about your fighting prowess if all you can do is slap around exported Soviet armor manned by third world crews. Really makes the price tag worth it, huh?
bradley in pentagonwars: bloated wasteful project that will suck as an armored vehicle bradley in reallife : eats soviet armor all day , badass killing machine with extreme survivability
I am sure it eats Söviet armor,but it can’t eat Russian cheap drones 😢,also tell that “ extreme survivability “ to the ukräñians after it failed on them, you have been brainwashed by propaganda too well.
@@zm1786 It seems before hand the T-90 had been battered up by atgm strikes and artillery, then the Bradleys turned up and hosed down it fragile sensors and such.
I am reading Bradley will be send to Ukraine, Hell yeah always loved the Bradley and it will be awsome supporting UA troops and kill russkies at the same time.
Some historical inaccuracies: The only reason the bradly has it's recon role is since the XM-800 got cancelled. Same goes for the TOW missiles. The Bradly was designed as a IFV carrying 9 men and having a 20mm cannon, and it was designed with firing ports. The reason the dummies cloths were taken off in the movie(they were dampened irl) is so during the vaporifics test, the cloths wouldn't catch fire and effect the atmospheric readings. There are more but I'm lazy to mention them.
A lot of historical inaccuracies. COL Burton was disgrunted and had an axe to grind against the pentagon so he wrote a book basically saying the Bradley was a horrible vehicle when it actually it's been combat proven
They should have just done it in variants. Variant 1 being the main purpose, a troop carrier. Variant 2 as the scout. Variant 3 as the tank with "enough ammo to take out half of D.C.".
The Pentagon has always thought there could be a single vehicle/aircraft that would do all jobs as well. The F-111 was another one. You end up with a compromise that does none of those jobs well.
For all of you who take this as gospel.. don't. The entire premise of this movie is from a guy who was (potentially) angry that his proposed prototype aircraft was not accepted. He was not a dashing but naive young man appointed by congress. The army was not forced by congress to do these tests. The idea that the bradley was a death trap because it can't survive modern anti-tank weapons is absurd, because that's not fucking possible on an IFV. And it is an IFV. It was always planned with a turret, as an IFV (AKA a light tank that can fit a few dudes in the back) in order to fight Russian BMPs, because having the enemy roll up in a fucking tank is bad when you don't have one, too. It was did not cost nearly as much as he claims. His complaints did not lead to improvements in the Bradley. The entire narrative was created by a bitter ex-employee to make himself look better. Don't trust memoirs, kids.
For one, movie - hilarious as it is -is 1. made by HBO (cough) 2. has literally NO resemblance to the heavily referenced book one of three section of the book.
Yea I bought into this at first…then I heard how the Bradley pretty much meme’d all over Iraq’s tanks in the Persian Gulf War and now I think the Bradley is fucking dope
+Adam Anderson This applies to far more than graduate research. All software development tends to succumb to this. If someone found a solution to this, it would probably multiply the productivity of the west 2 or 3 times over.
@@boptillyouflop Throw out all the MBAs and promote engineers to management. Who cares if they don't have "people skills" - just hire motivated people and they'll find ways to work together.
Lmao I still remember the portholes. Seriously, I am glad to hear the Bradley has found it's place in todays Army. Back in the day I'd rather have walked to the battlefield. The back hatch area was so crowded the running joke was one needed a PHD in space management in order to find room to fit all the equipment we needed for the mission. Ruck sacks, MRE boxes, extra m16 ammo you name it. 30 seconds after the hatch was secured it would turn into a sauna back there.
>ruck sacks On the sides! >MRE boxes Put them where the TOWs are supposed to go or wear them as hats! >extra ammo You got an FLC and assault pack for a reason, soldier t. Current Cav Scout, this is what we've been doing on our field missions, no practical experience though because the Big Red One doesn't do any combat ig
I had the Good Fortune of driving a Bradley for a while including swimming it across a lake. The practicality of the vehicle may have always been a mystery but none the less it was fun. And it went from a APC to the BFV
The Razorback, a Rhino that can't carry troops, a Landspeeder that's too slow, a Landraider that can't take punishment and a Predator that can't dish it out.
I love how everything changes as the years go by except for poor Smith who simply loses more hair as he’s stuck at half bird colonel for 13 years while the generals who are keeping him there keep getting more stars.
Sgt. York was cancelled when they had a big test presentation and the auto-radar firing system locked onto an outhouse vent-fan and vaporized the Officers' dumper. Luckily no one was in it at the time. Almost killing a bunch of Top-Brass gets your show cancelled immediately.
@@sassysauron2426 The Bradley's eight inches taller actually. Bradley's also seven tons heavier and three feet longer. The Bradley is almost ten feet tall. (9.8) Lets compare that height to some Main Battle Tanks. An M1 Abrams is eight feet tall. A Challenger 2 is eight foot 2. The T-80 is 7 foot 2. A LeClerc is 8 foot 3. The German Leopard is taller than a Bradley at ten feet. A scout vehicle is not meant to be larger than Main Battle Tanks. It's supposed to be able to move around undetected. It's not meant to be a big tall box with two big missile launchers perched on its turret like Mickey Mouse ears. The Chaffee was a World War Two tank. It was designed with the thought that it would fight other tanks of similar design. The Bradley was designed as a troop carrier. Light tanks were designed specifically for environments where heavy tanks couldn't go, meaning they were expected to only face other light tanks or at worst medium tanks. It had the corresponding armour. The Bradley meanwhile has a troop carrier's armour and was expected to follow behind Main Battle Tanks where it's lack of turret and obvious troop carrier status would mean it would be ignored. Instead as this film points out, it looks like a tank. But it's not a tank, it's a troop carrier. But the enemy isn't going to know that from a mile away until they hit it and are surprised at their modern armour-piercing round tearing clean through its puny aluminium armour.
@@DomWeasel Oh wow, a Bradley is a whopping eight inches taller than a Chaffee. That makes so much of a difference! You know what that extra eight inches is by the way? It's the ISU that both gives infrared and provides targeting for the TOW system. Let me tell you a problem with "the enemy doesn't know it's a troop carrier" argument. Firstly, yes, they know it's a troop carrier. Secondly, no, they don't care. They're gonna blow it up either way.
As a software engineer, this hits close to home, LOL ... this is the military equivalent of our meetings with corporate / non-technical management and dealing with the wild investor and client requests. I usually make the analogy that they want their own permanent base built on the moon in only two weeks, and they insist that it shouldn't take very long at all because the base can just be like a little clubhouse or fort built by little boys ... if kids can do it in only a few days all the time, then why can't we, damn it?! So you point out that the problem is getting to the moon and somehow building something there that can sustain life, and that it's hundreds of thousands of kilometers away and would take a ton of rocket fuel to simply get there and then you might die if anything goes wrong ... so they think about it for a second and then say "Well, I was in Hobby Lobby and _they_ sell model rocket engines, tape and glue ... how many of the big fat ones will you need?" 🤦🤦🤦
in actuality the Bradley was always intended as an IFV in response to the Russian BMP it came in under budget and believe it or not a vehicle not designed to be a tank isn't meant to be survivable against anti-tank weaponry
I'm fascinated by the implication that the enemy WOULDN'T shoot at it if they knew it was 'just a troop carrier' Like, if I knew it had a bunch of troops in it, I would shoot it harder?
