Why didn't they build something good instead?

>>31036159
It killed more tanks in the First Gulf War than any other vehicle.

Op is a fucking fag.

File: 0b4.jpg (35KB, 453x576px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 453x576px

>>31036169
>It killed more tanks in the First Gulf War than any other vehicle.

>>31036169
>It killed more tanks in the First Gulf War than any other vehicle.

1) That didn't happen.

2) Even if it were true, Desert Storm was a turkey shoot that lasted less than 72 hours.

Why can't americans fight real wars with actual equipment? I don't understand this obsession with pretending you have the best military in the world despite never fighting any wars.

>>31036169
>>31036195
>>31036204
>americunts completely destroyed within 1 post

>>31036159
because the good selector was broken, so we had to settle

for FUCKING GREAT.

>>31036159

>IVFs are shit

Yeah, I guess thats why everyone uses them these days.

Fuck off Mike Sparks.

>>31036285
fuck

*IFVs

>>31036204

>Why can't americans fight real wars with actual equipment?

because we're friends/trading partners with all the countries that have actual militaries.

>>31036276

You have to be at least 18 to post on this website.

>>31036285
>IFV's are shit

I didn't say that.

What is the point of making up shit like this? Do you not realize that anyone can just scroll back up to my post, which is only 3 posts above yours, and read what I actually said?

Do you think that I'm going to read your post and say "Oh, I guess I really did say this insane thing that came out of absolutely nowhere! And I must be totally wrong about it! Wow, time for suicide!"

No, dude. We're just going to read your post, realize it's a retarded strawman shitpost that has nothing to do with the thread, and mock you for posting it.

>>31036291
>america
>friends with anyone

>>31036204
>why can't they fight a real war
For what reason? If you're going into a fair fight someone fucked up BIG in the planning of the war.

>>31036295

Its just a generic IFV, not better or worse than any other IFV of the time, so I just assumed that you were Mike sparks posting.

>>31036169
>It killed more tanks in the First Gulf War than any other vehicle.
Surely the MLRS and F-111 killed more

>>31036295
>read what I actually said
>vague implication that thing is bad
>thing is IFV: The Movie: The Game: The IFV: The IFV

Substantiate, motherfucker.

Pentagon Wars memes will result in instant thread drop.

>>31036204

>he's too young to remember the projected losses of Gulf War 1

>Be me in Israel
>2008
>US Army sends 4 M2 Bardley's to trial with IDF to see if we want to buy 200 NG ones that are being thrown away because of some shit in Iraq
>IDF hates the vehicle and says it'd rather stick with an M113

I still think we made the wrong decision but still lelz.

>>31036204
>war against 4th largest army in the world
>Not a "real war"

This is BS. You can fight a real war and have it be one-sided. Gulf War was the last "real war" (i.e. conventional, massive, pitched) that the US has fought.

>>31036159
You do realize these things are pretty much the main reason why Russian tanks are packing GLATGMs right?

>>31036505

>Da M113 Gavin is da best

lol

>>31036423
I think he meant armored fighting ground vehicles. The Bradley did destroy more T-72s and other slav shit than the Abrams.

>>31036204
>Barely wins Georgian war because fighting against fellow slavs
>Wins Chechen war only by levelling entire cities but still suffered horrendous tank losses
>Shot down by kebabs in Syria.
>Spins soldier suicide as heroic last stand. Bomb probably missed anyway
>Fleet rusting at anchor
>Flies antique prop bombers as 'show of farce'
>Joke of a 5th gen fighter running out of money
>Paper thin joke Armateur tank

Fight real wars.

File: 1471225849734.jpg (673KB, 2464x1648px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 2464x1648px

>>31036204
I can't wait to see the damage control from your kind the next time America takes on and utterly demolishes a 'real' enemy.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm

>>31036159
Haven't these been replaced with the Stryker yet?

>>31036978
There will be no "real enemy" to them.

If US demolishes them, they were clearly a paper tiger :^)

>>31037004
The Striker and Bradley serve entirely different roles, that's like asking why the F-35 isn't replacing the F-22.

File: 1471038432300.jpg (53KB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 426x426px

>>31037007
>mfw future vatniks going full mental gymnastics and claiming that Russia was just a shitty monkey model of the Soviet Union anyway (which isn't too inaccurate to be fair)

>>31036159

Its arguably the best IFV of its era.

The BMP-3 is next up, but the M2 has better all around armor, and two tow launchers instead of a GLAT, and the 25mm is roughly equal to its 30mm.

The rest are inferior as fuck.

>>31037040
Aren't the CV90, Bionix and others comparable ?

>>31037087
>CV90
Came out a good decade later, and no ATGM

>Bionix

Came out almost 2 decades later, still no ATGM

If buttfucking the world's 4th largest army in the only large-scale maneuver war since WW2 isn't a real war, than IDK what is.

The Bradley has performed it's job exceptionally well since it's initial deployment. People calling the Bradley a shit vehicle despite it's operational history immediately out themselves as either 17 year-old Reddit memesters who just watched Pentagon Wars, or butthurt Euros who sit there and beat off to whatever Piranha variant they have that sits in the motor pool having never fired a shot in anger while the Bradleys do the actual heavy lifting.

File: 1467512451754.png (123KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 785x757px

>Brads
>Bad

Stop posting about things you know nothing about.

>>31036918
>Russian losses in Syria
>two drunk instructors, one spetsnaz officer, one antique plane, one even older helicopter

>US losses in Syria
>enough money to buy Australia
>enough equipment wasted on arabs to reenact WW2
>all dignity you can have with Obama as your president
>Turkey de facto leaves NATO
Stop embarrassing yourselves

You realize pentagon wars was a comedy about the inefficiency of military procurement and not specifically about the Bradley? The Bradley is fine for what it was meant for.

>>31037040
But the BMP 3 has paper armor and there are less than 100 of them

>>31037165
They're a bitch for dismounts if there's more than 6 or 7 sitting in the back. Can't have everything I guess

https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA

/thread

>>31037257
Was this supposed to be ironic?

>>31037257
On the subject of Pentagon Wars, I know a guy who worked in the Pentagon for many years.

He says that while the events of that movie were largely fictitious, it is overall a depressingly accurate depiction of how projects in general operate in the Pentagon and the kinds of people who are in power, and what they'll do to keep that power at any cost.

So, that's not really how the Brad was designed (IE the developers put the turret and missiles on, it was NOT a request by outside influences) but that kind of shitshow and politics before efficiency is how most of it goes.

Still, fun movie.

>>31037165
>If buttfucking the world's 4th largest army in the only large-scale maneuver war since WW2 isn't a real war, than IDK what is.
The Iranians fought them to a stalemate using basically Infantry divisions. They fucking routinely routed mechanized and motorized divisions with hajjis on fucking foot. Iraqis aren't a benchmark for anything but in being clowns.

>>31037328

>Le iran only used infantry divisions meme

wew laddy

>>31037337
>being this ignorant
wew lassy

>>31037328
>They fucking routinely routed mechanized and motorized divisions with hajjis on fucking foot
This is ironically, as much of a misconception as the 'Soviets drowned the Germans in poorly supported human waves' meme.

>>31037257
is this comedy

>>31037426
Try again bud. They did primarily light infantry to fucking storm Iraqi positions and breach into their rears. Having 300 tanks with a rapidly drying up logistics tail vs 3000 tanks pretty much mean they have to employ what little armor they have left piecemeal to support breakthroughs, not achieve them.

>>31037416

Comedy gold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nasr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tariq_al-Qods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fath_ol-Mobin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Beit_ol-Moqaddas

>>31037165
>world's 4th largest army

Oh, there's this meme again. It's been a while since I'd seen it. A bankrupt army, whose hardware was falling apart, and had just gotten out of a massive WWI reenactment with Iran. Not something to brag about.

>>31036918
>Barely wins Georgian war because fighting against fellow slavs
What the fuck are you talking about? The Russians were flying jets over Tblisi while Sakashvilli was throwing press conferences on open street just to make him shit himself.

>>31037495
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nasr
They lost here when they attempted to use armor as it should be: your pet Iraqis got beat by flunkies who can't into combined arms anyway.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tariq_al-Qods
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fath_ol-Mobin
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Beit_ol-Moqaddas
Literally fought through human waves.

>>31036204
>moving the goalposts

As expected of asspained Europoors

>>31036505
You wouldn't just lie on the internet, would you Sparky

>>31037600
>Literally fought though human waves

23 armored battalions
9 mechanized battalions
29 artillery battalions

OH IM HAVIN A LAFF M8

>>31036204
>fly over seas half way across the globe
>bring down the 4th largest army in the world to 126th largest army in the world in a matter of days
>muh americans can't fight real wars
>meanwhile glorious soviet empire of russia under the iron fist of tovarish putin struggles to crush some malnourished, genocided halfbaked undermench with pointy sticks just across their border

And to answer OP, it's not that bad for being designed by a committee. Still better than soviet counterparts which are so shit the infantry its supposed to protect rather rides on top of it.

>>31037523
Sounds like russia desu

>>31037664
>112 infantry battalions
>>31037687
assmad fatnik detected

>>31037550
Georgian air defense ripped the russians a new asshole.

>>31037732
>700 tanks

LAFF
A
F
F

>>31037667
>muh americans can't fight real wars
You even had to bring friends...

>meanwhile glorious soviet empire of russia under the iron fist of tovarish putin struggles to crush some malnourished, genocided halfbaked undermench with pointy sticks just across their border
Oh they can push their shit in just fine. However you break it you pay for it as they say and mad max land isn't worth it.

>>31037732
I don't have to be an american to see that soviet union is still there at the height of it's worst time.

Remember t-10? That's armata mate.

>>31037769
>USA friends:
>developed democratic countries

>Russia's subordinates
>Belarus
>what's left of syria
>20 square meters of ukraine

>>31037735
the Russians downed 2 of their own aircraft too

>>31036195
how is it doing against ied?

>>31037735
Iraqi "air defence" ripped yours more.

>>31037807
>developed democratic countries
you mean cucks masquerading as countries?

>Russia's subordinates
Includes the Central Asian States. There's a partnership of convenience with China and a real hot and sloppy relationship with India. Turkey's in line to suck their cock too.

>>31037769
>muh americans can't fight real wars
>You even had to bring friends...

The allied aid in the first Gulf War was minimal at best, with the majority of fighting and the most decisive victories done by the US military.

And no matter the conflict, whether it's playing cowboys and indians in your backyard or fucking World War III, if you have allies you'd be an idiot not to bring them along. There's no shame in having friends, anon.

>>31037865
>all first world countries that have democracy, freedom, high living standards and don't kill people who are writing news on a daily basis
>cucks because they can afford real meat and ketchup
the grapes are sour

>>31037899
The vatnik always puts the relationship between individuals or countries and the US in explicit terms of sexual dominance, a telling sign of Russia’s sometimes amusing but ultimately disturbing masculinity crisis. Refusal to bow to Putin’s Russia is bending over or getting down on one’s knees for the United States, the only other country in the world that matters. To this end the vatnik likes to portray his enemies as prostitutes or passive homosexuals, unwittingly revealing his fears and insecurities about sexual domination and humiliation. Insults revolving around oral and anal sex are par-for-the course when discussing politics with the vatnik, regardless of age.

>>31037899
>democracy
uh, what 2 parties with different names but pretty much the same policies and masters?

>high living standards
sustained by debts for the most part. apparently fuck the next generation right?

>don't kill people who are writing news on a daily basis
Unless they don't tow the party line....

>>cucks because they can afford real meat and ketchup
"real meat", sure thing bud.

>>31037953
that's what 7 decades of soviet russia do.
Either compare america related countries to anal sex or have pictures of your daughter being analy by kgb sexted to you

>>31036505
>things that never happened

>>31037296
Obligatory copypasta.

File: 1460924347597.jpg (470KB, 1446x952px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1446x952px

>>31037257

>>31037755
Not him but the iraqis are stated to have twice the amount of tanks and having as many APC's as tanks.

Yet they suffered high losses.

>>31036204
>72 hours
100 hours, youngster. And even then, some fighting continued past that artificial deadline.

>>31037110
The CV90 can be equpped with a twin ATGM missile launcher, it's just that nobody has requested it so far.

>>31036304
You're right
because we're the tard wranglers of all the countries that have actual militaries.

>>31037769
They were there more for geopolitical reasons (especially the arab units) than for their military effectiveness.

>>31037203
>Russian losses in Syria
>two drunk instructors, one spetsnaz officer, one antique plane, one even older helicopter

Not even slightly true but sure.

>US losses in Syria
>enough money to buy Australia
Russia has infact spent more money in Syria.
>enough equipment wasted on arabs to reenact WW2
What equpment, name some?
>all dignity you can have with Obama as your president
They have infact achived quite a bit with their limited resources.
>Turkey de facto leaves NATO
And nothing of value was lost.

>>31036159
amazing vehicle you are moronic, does need replacement though starting to get old in inventory

>>31037979
>uh, what 2 parties with different names but pretty much the same policies and masters?
That is indeed retarded but it only applies for the US.

>ustained by debts for the most part. apparently fuck the next generation right?
So far it has worked for the last 70 years, the next few generations will be fine.

>Unless they don't tow the party line....
Wew, comming from a vatnik. Then again, I assume that FSB rounds up everyone who doesnt shit all this propaganda for them.

>"real meat", sure thing bud.
Still better than a diet of vodka and potatos.

>>31036505
Isreal doesn't need them to do the annual Palestinian op. they probably did not want them due to engine issues, what not.

>>31037953
Kek

>>31039764
>Turkey de facto leaves NATO
>And nothing of value was lost.

You idiot.

That means the Black Sea Fleet can enter the Mediterranean relatively uncontested now without Turkey shooting at them.

That also means NATO lost its largest ground army in the European / Middleeast sphere.

Turkey might be shit, but it was a polished golden turd, one that is about to be lost thanks to shenanigans.

>>31039984
Fuck em and fuck Europe too. Bunch of pussy ass bitches who never fucking do anything but bitch and refuse to fight their own battles. Turkey would be covered in Russian Ratnik a year ago if we hadn't been there to bail their asses out for being a bunch of retards/

>>31039984

No reason to be allied with a nation that doesnt want to be allied with you anyway. It would have to be a fuck huge war to ever see greeks and turks fighting on the same side anyway.

>fuck Europe too.
>Bunch of pussy ass bitches who never fucking do anything but bitch and refuse to fight their own battles.

The last time the US had to aid a EU cunt was in ww2. Guess why? They dont go around invading half the world all the time.

>>31040201
That's because we do it for you, you ass.

>>31039984
I highly doubt the quality of Turkey's army after how badly they fucked up the coup, and with Erdogan actively neutering them to ensure they're never again powerful enough to question his rule.

Basically they've become yet another shit-tier Arab army.

>>31040212
So you invaded Iraq or Afghanistan for Europe and not for your own interrests?
Dude, watch less Fox News, it fucks up your brain.

>>31040281
>Libya

File: 1468524559532.jpg (59KB, 395x401px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 395x401px

>>31036918
>quells islamic insurgency in Chechnya in just a few years
>meanwhile burgers have been fucking around for 15 years and now Islamists are more powerful than ever
wow......

>>31040201
>They dont go around invading half the world all the time.
>Europe
>WWII era
>still colonial powers
>don't invade places

>>31040281

Yeah, Europe joined the party but I'm seriously wondering what they were thinking.
Not that we hadn't seen in Iraq what happens when you remove the dictator that keep the jihadis under control.
But according to Trump it was all the idea of Hillary and Obama...

>>31040322
>bribe local Chechen strongmen
>still get yearly bombings

>>31040322
It basically came down to them finding the Chechen group least likely to backstab them and bribing them heavily to keep the others in line.

We'll see how well it really worked once the rubles stop flowing.

>>31040366
>according to Trump it was all the idea of Hillary and Obama

Libya, Syria and Egypt say hi.

>>31040201
We kinda helped the French in Vietnam.

File: russian.png (199KB, 263x249px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 263x249px

>>31036204
>never fighting any wars

have literally fought in ever major conflict of the last 100yrs

>All of these other tanks are better than American tanks because they've got zero kills rather than hundreds of kills against armor I deem unworthy

File: 38c5afe8d808e6abf4eafd387e337f52.png (170KB, 235x337px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 235x337px

>>31036304
>Friends

>>31036261
kys

>>31037328

>Infintry divisions and tactics

I don't know if that's the term I would use to describe the intentional use of conscript forces as mass surrendering human road blocks

>>31037550

Nigga half their tanks got stuck on improved road ways due to logistical and command failures

Spetznaz and planes were about the only things that worked properly for the Russians in the Georgian conflict

>>31041810
>Nigga half their tanks
This thing's properly documented, why pull out random stuff from where the sun doesn't shine?

>improved road ways
They only fixed and expanded the dilapidated roadways after the war.

>logistical
didn't matter much since the fighting took 3 days at most.

>command failures
Embarrassing need to borrow journo sat phones aside, they did pretty well in the C&C department. Especially in the first phase of the operation when the leading 2nd Battalion rushed in to save the peacekeepers in the city; tehy actually got ambushed and got the highest ranking CO killed- and yet they managed to disperse themselves and conduct run and gun battles with the Georgians until offmap support arrived and tip the scales in their favor.

>planes
They performed... adequately, but the losses are still huge and embarrassing. The success of the much newer Su-34 highlights the need for a modern strike fighter capable of handling air defences and thankfully they didn't seem to miss that lesson- they just produced the 100th serial model recently.

>>31037831
We are not using those for that purpose.

>>31036204
How autistic are you fucking heathens in the old world.

File: M2-Turretless Bradley.jpg (177KB, 1577x661px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1577x661px

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/
Aug. 19 2016

U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian Threat Is Great for Business

THE ESCALATING ANTI-RUSSIAN rhetoric in the U.S. presidential campaign comes in the midst of a major push by military contractors to position Moscow as a potent enemy that must be countered with a drastic increase in military spending by NATO countries.

Weapon makers have told investors that they are relying on tensions with Russia to fuel new business in the wake of Russian’s annexation of Crimea and modest increases in its military budget.

In particular, the arms industry — both directly and through its arsenal of hired-gun, think-tank experts and lobbyists – is actively pressuring NATO member nations to hike defense spending in line with the NATO goal for member states to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

Retired Army Gen. Richard Cody, a vice president at L-3 Communications, the seventh largest U.S. defense contractor, explained to shareholders in December that the industry was faced with a historic opportunity. Following the end of the Cold War, Cody said, peace had “pretty much broken out all over the world,” with Russia in decline and NATO nations celebrating. “The Wall came down,” he said, and “all defense budgets went south.”

Now, Cody argued, Russia “is resurgent” around the world, putting pressure on U.S. allies. “Nations that belong to NATO are supposed to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense,” he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. “We know that uptick is coming and so we postured ourselves for it.”

>>31042860
>Putin playing 5d chess by fucking up Ukraine
>shits up his economy and pushes potential adversaries to spend more on their militaries instead of less

>>31036204
Now this is shitposting!

>>31036204
>Why can't americans fight real wars with actual equipment? I don't understand this obsession with pretending you have the best military in the world despite never fighting any wars.

There's only two ways to fight a "real war" against USA military, assymetrical or stupid. The taliban, Iraq insurgency or vietcong fought the assymetrical one, Saddam fought the stupid one.

Sit down and compare the outcomes...

>>31036204
Actually it did happen. Brads killed more Iraqi armor than M1s.

Another little known fact is that American tanks killed more Bradleys than were killed by Iraqi armor.....to the tune of 90% friendly fire kills.

Twenty one Bradleys were destroyed in Desert Storm. We only lost 3 to enemy fire.

>>31037896
The Brits, and French did a number

>>31042948
This, I don't know how people who are not vatniks are claiming Putin as a some strategic genius when the only thing he had achieved by the moment is revive NATO, the same NATO that after the Afghanistan disaster was going the way of the dodo due lack of real enemies and purporse

Now everybody at the east of paris is going to pump up their defence spending, spending being used somewhere because there were no threats. And for the west bringing the forces up to the late 80's numbers are just a money question. But Russia sure is not going to revive the humongous red army and the GSFG, they neither have the money, manpower or infrastructure to do it.

>>31042948
The shitty global economy and subsequent tanking of oil prices are the root cause of the recession in Russia, not anything Putin did.
>>31045984
>the same NATO that after the Afghanistan disaster was going the way of the dodo due lack of real enemies and purporse
maximumlaughter.jpg
NATO would never go away as long as the US desires to remain as a superpower.

>Now everybody at the east of paris is going to pump up their defence spending, spending being used somewhere because there were no threats.
Good. Everyone is in need of a refresh and update from the peace dividend bs.

>And for the west bringing the forces up to the late 80's numbers are just a money question.
Its a money and political question still. Most European governments aren't actually hot shit with their populace that they have enough political capital to use in raising defence budgets. Speaking the truth nobody in the rich Western European states (the ones that really matter) care all that much if at all for the Ukrainians. They have much bigger fish to fry than some big bad eastern boogeyman.

>But Russia sure is not going to revive the humongous red army and the GSFG, they neither have the money, manpower or infrastructure to do it.
They'd be retards if they did so. If they really want to no sell NATO conventional superiority they just pull out of the INF treaty and begin massive buildup of nuke capable PGMs; handily takes care of China as well.

>>31046141
>NATO would never go away as long as the US desires to remain as a superpower.

Exactly, that's why nato was kept alive on life support all the 90's, but it was a shadow compared with the size and political influence of the cold war days, that was my point. Sooner or later washington would had to reform it, replace with another alliance or get rid of it to keep that influence alive, no one cared about NATO anymore after the USSR went under, now that point is moot.

>Its a money and political question still. Most European governments aren't actually hot shit with their populace that they have enough political capital to use in raising defence budgets.

Russia wants to be big and scary like the soviet union was, they tell that to everyone who wants to hear, they have singled out NATO and the West as their foes, no the other way around. They don't want just to keep their country safe from NATO and the west but extend their "influence" over their older subjects. for the moment they can only threaten their borders but if they stop to talking the talk and start to walking the walk, sure as hell the EU will pump up their military muscle.

>>31046285
>Exactly, that's why nato was kept alive on life support all the 90's, but it was a shadow compared with the size and political influence of the cold war days
No it isn't. Its never been more powerful without the Soviet bloc to counter it.

>Sooner or later washington would had to reform it, replace with another alliance or get rid of it to keep that influence alive, no one cared about NATO anymore after the USSR went under, now that point is moot.
Russia and a lot of countries do. NATO has expanded eastwards, notwithstanding Russia's security concerns as well as bombed quite a lot of countries for shit reasons.

>Russia wants to be big and scary like the soviet union was, they tell that to everyone who wants to hear, they have singled out NATO and the West as their foes
No they don't. Its the opposite in reality outside of neocon talking points.

>but extend their "influence" over their older subjects.
They don't give a fuck about E. Europe! That place can go to the dogs for all they care but its Russia's business if those countries want to join NATO and place NATO bases on their soil- Its too close to the heartland that they can't risk any chance of a hostile military alliance getting its starting point any nearer.

>sure as hell the EU will pump up their military muscle.
Sure. As if it would make a difference in the calculus- they are already outmatched conventionally and can only count on a quick offensive to gain the upper hand on the negotiating table a la Nazi Germany's Operation Barbarossa and Invasion of Western Europe, with tac. nukes as a sort of timeout before they get BTFO.

File: 11th Arm_1st Arm veteran.png (631KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 960x635px

>>31046479
> but its Russia's business if those countries want to join NATO

Sorry, but no.

It was Russia’s “business” that drove all those countries into NATO, Russia has no say in their foreign policy anymore.

>>31046479
>>Russia wants to be big and scary like the soviet union was, they tell that to everyone who wants to hear, they have singled out NATO and the West as their foes
>No they don't. Its the opposite in reality outside of neocon talking points.
yes they fucking its a key tenet of putin staying in power is to showcase russia as some superpower to help whip up nationalist sentiment

>>31046479
>Russia and a lot of countries do. NATO has expanded eastwards, notwithstanding Russia's security concerns as well as bombed quite a lot of countries for shit reasons.

Notice how all the new NATO members are former Russian slave states? Really makes you think.

Serbs deserved to get bombed for the shit they pulled.

File: BMP-3.jpg (858KB, 2249x1425px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 2249x1425px

>>31036159
It's so ugly, I'd kill myself if I were select as a crew member for this.

>tfw we will never be friendly enough with based russia to get BMP's

>>31047570
Friendly? Anyone with a wallet was welcome to them back in the early nineties.

>>31047462
>It was Russia’s “business” that drove all those countries into NATO, Russia has no say in their foreign policy anymore.
It doesn't. It makes what it wants happen, that's what major powers do. The Eastern European nations have no effective clout even amongst themselves anyways- they are Germany's bitches in all but name and Germany is quite rational actor if not for its current leadership, but it has powerful business interest groups that are always willing to hear what Russia has to say.

>yes they fucking its a key tenet of putin staying in power is to showcase russia as some superpower to help whip up nationalist sentiment
Most of his support stems from the immense amount of felt progress from his term as leader- the saber rattling is just cherry on top.

>>31047528
>Serbs deserved to get bombed for the shit they pulled.
And now Kosovo and Albania are the hotbed of extremism in the center of Europe... Nice 1
No biggie anyways, Serbs have proven themselves to be just as big of cucks as they purport the ones who bombed them to be.

>>31036204
>Why can't americans fight real wars with actual equipment?

The only two countries we could have """""""""""real wars""""""""""" with are Russia and China at this point, and if you're asking "why don't we go to war with them" then you should probably commit suicide

>I don't understand this obsession with pretending you have the best military in the world despite never fighting any wars.

The irony in this statement is fucking palpable

File: 1471011809130.jpg (16KB, 480x336px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x336px

>>31036204
>waaah waaaah war has to be fair or it doesn't count

Fucking kill yourself, retarded vatnik/sandnigger.

>people on here actually think bradleys are great IFVs
Top kek.

Bradleys are great on paper and have a good combat record, theres no denying that. That being said i know few people who actually like them. They are fairly decent in the IFV role, but are too small to carry anything more than 4-5 dismount personnel in full combat gear in the back. This is a particular issue when a full squad is between 8-9 and 12 depending on unit SOP. Not to mention the vehicle was 13 feet tall (now more like 14 due to a recent suspension upgrade) so it's not at all easy to hide when in a scout/recon/Fire Support role, and a metric fuck ton of mechanical issues leave a lot to be desired...

>>31050500
>I admit Bradley's are great, but here is a list of bullshit that I try to rationalize my negative opinion with

>>31050659
They have a nice track record, but they are awful to operate and maintain.

>>31051053
And said track record was gained by curb stomping iraqis in second-third hand slavshit with little to no comparable Electro optical, LRF or FLIR/Night TV capabilities....

>>31036513
>steamrolling technologically inferior foe is real war

>>31051123
>war isn't war unless both sides are 100% equal

>>31051122
>with little to no comparable Electro optical, LRF or FLIR/Night TV capabilities

Just like the Soviet army of the time.

>>31051580
>implying the soviet army at the time didnt have Night and flir capabilities.
>implying the soviets didnt give iraq it's equipment stripped down
>implying the hordes of iraqi T-72s weren't export versions with only the day sights

Bet you think all the aircraft we export have complete avionics packages, or the abrams we export have the classified composite armor.

>>31051829

>implying the soviet army at the time didnt have Night and flir capabilities.

They didn't. The Soviets were utterly shocked at US night-fighting capabilities during desert storm. It made them seriously re-evaluate a lot of assumptions they had made about what the US could and could not do, and most importantly, it made them realize just how behind they actually were. It was a very rude awakening for them.

>>31037328
even after americans reforming them, rearming them, and retraining them, they throw down their rifles and throw up their hands for ISIS. what a valid foe.

>>31051829
The Soviets had thermal sights on only a handful of vehicles, IR lamps and light enhancing night vision is not comparable.

>>31052097
>sunni Iraqi's refuse to fight sunni ISIS
>'half' of Iraq's army was just names on papers so corrupt officers could collect paychecks

>>31047462
wow what autist was in charge of post processing on this piece of shit pic

File: BMP cross country.jpg (75KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x683px

>>31036412
>not better or worse than any other IFV of the time

But thats wrong, it was demonstrably worse than its opposite number

File: 1471731579952.png (116KB, 300x295px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 300x295px

>>31052802
Do people actually believe the shit they post?

>>31036204
>Why can't americans fight real wars with actual equipment?

The USA destroyed the 5th largest army in the world in less than 100 hours. This is after giving Iraq months to prepare.

>>31036573
>The Bradley did destroy more T-72s and other slav shit than the Abrams.
>[citation needed]
There are no BDA in public domain to confirm this claim.

>There are people who think the Bolsheviks had a chance against NATO
The Warsaw Pact would have fought a defensive war the entire time, and likely would have had to resort to tactical nuclear warfare (Literally the only thing they did better than America) to survive.

>>31053733
Yes, the 5th largest army that was underequipped, full of conscripts with a days worth of training, and stripped down shitty Soviet vehicles. That's really not that much of a challenge.

>>31054086
Funny how Soviet generals didn't agree with you.

>>31054235
Considering Soviet generals were paid to say what the higher ups wanted to hear, yes, it doesn't surprise me.

>>31040243
Soldiers getting told to hold some locations, they think its a drill, some think due to terror threat because day before truck massacre happened in Nice. Many captured soldiers tell the same thing, they were clueless. Also coups before were done in the midst of night when everyone is sleeping. Arrest or kill anyone you dont want and high rank officer or general holds speech on national TV.

This coup was a shit show. Also no sane soldier would had just starting to shoot and kill people plus they were left in the dark no orders and no one knowing whats going on. And Turks are not arabs.

>>31036412
Bradley was most potent AFVs killer among Western (well and all) IFVs.
1. Gun dealing with soviet light armor no problem.
2. Twin ATGM launchers, solid number of spare missiles.
3. Turret design making Bradley very small target when using ATGM from hull down
4. Good FCS with stabilization and FLIR.
Others were really peace of shit:
>lel 20mm gun
>lel no ATGM
>lel no stabilization manual crank for vertical aiming

>but IFVs and tanks fight not only AFVs!
Well, when you fight soviets you can do only this. Kill their armor and their IFV centric infantry/VDV becomes nothing. Bradly was really good at dealing with soviet tank zerg rush doctrine.

>>31052802

> What is no stabilizers
> What is armor so poor the occupants often choose to sit on top of it rather than inside it
> What is unarmored fuel tanks over the rear (and only) exit doors
> What is no FLIR
> What is no Thermals
> What is requiring the TC to exit the vehicle and reload the ATGM after every single shot

>>31036204
No one has a real army to fight. Pretty sure russia would have to use nukes.

>>31054963
>What is no stabilizers
BMP-2 has stabilizer.

> What is unarmored fuel tanks over the rear (and only) exit doors
They are armored and ok design. More dangerous are aluminum fuel tank in the infantry compartment and lack of automatic fire suppression system there (anyway soviet fire suppression never works, such complex systems can'r deal with vodka logistics and hammer repairs). This was pure disaster.

File: 1441987598102.jpg (263KB, 1208x930px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1208x930px

>>31054963
>What is no stabilizers
No "stabilizers" apart from the dual-axis gun stabilization.

> What is armor so poor the occupants often choose to sit on top of it rather than inside it
Thin armor is a necessary trade-off for amphibious capability.

> What is unarmored fuel tanks over the rear
Just because the fuel tanks are there does not mean that they are kept full when entering battle.

>(and only) exit doors
There roof hatches.
Have you ever even seen a picture of a BMP?

> What is no FLIR
The only valid point you've brought up.

>What is requiring the TC to exit the vehicle and reload the ATGM after every single shot
You make it sound as though he has to climb out of the vehicle to reload.
In reality the TC can reload the ATGM without exposing much more than his arms.

>>31036204
Who the fuck fights actual wars anymore. Stupid nigger.

>>31037203
>>31037550
>>31040322

50% of Russian air combat losses were from friendly fire. That is a joke, you should embarrassed.

Russia's performance in both Chechen wars was equally embarrassing.

The one consistent theme Russia displays when attempting to use force is complete incompetence.

>>31056910
It's not like Russians sucking at using force is a new thing.

>Russo-Afghan War

>>31051866
They didn't have passive Infrared, but they have active IR and night intensification sights up the wazoo. Everyone from infrantry to IFVs to tanks had them.
>>31054952
>Well, when you fight soviets you can do only this. Kill their armor and their IFV centric infantry/VDV becomes nothing. Bradly was really good at dealing with soviet tank zerg rush doctrine.
Doubt.jpg since TOWs don't have enough punch to go through most Soviet frontal armor at the time.

File: wut.gif (4MB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 600x338px

>>31051123
>>31036204

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKi3NwLFkX4

Here is how the US actually steam rolled the First Gulf War Iraqs. It was a turkey shoot because it was a logistical masterpiece. It wasn't a fair fight, but it was superbly executed. There was a bunch of problems at the tactical level.

>tfw can't just vote for Stormin Norman as president

File: good idea fairy.jpg (68KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x497px

It was gonna be good...then the good idea fairy took it for a ride
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

>>31056978
>but they have active IR and night intensification sights up the wazoo.
>implying they worth anything
You better just use daysight and flares. Intensification sights were a mistake.

>since TOWs don't have enough punch to go through most Soviet frontal armor at the time.
>this is what vatniks believe

File: the-iran-iraq-war-troops-in-trenches-on-the-iran-iraq-border.jpg (87KB, 700x462px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 700x462px

>>31036513
Lets remember than just 2 years before "4th largest military in the world" proved itself so incompetent that despite having both US and Soviet Union backing, their war with Iran devolved into trench warfare. Meanwhile Iran purged their CO's, NCO's and pilots and despite of it, they stood strong.

Saddam's military was nothing really impressive

>>31046479
>No it isn't. Its never been more powerful without the Soviet bloc to counter it.NATO without the soviet block is nothing but a military organization to make war against no one else, that's why an alliance built to protect and unite europe and the us militaries in an unified command went outside their "turf" to quagmires like the balkans and Afghanistan... they were looking for a reason to exist.

>Russia and a lot of countries do. NATO has expanded eastwards, notwithstanding Russia's security concerns as well as bombed quite a lot of countries for shit reasons

Ok, now let's count the trend of military spending of all the NATO countries, new and old and the size of their militaries. The trend is downward every year, for these countries NATO membership it's just a political step to be accepted into the west europe sphere. But on size and spending, NATO didn't grow, it got smaller and smaller.

>No they don't. Its the opposite in reality outside of neocon talking points

Yes, please go to RT and read the political statements. They are always remembering the USSR and how they were respected.

>They don't give a fuck about E. Europe! That place can go to the dogs for all they care but its Russia's business if those countries want to join NATO and place NATO bases on their soil- Its too close to the heartland that they can't risk any chance of a hostile military alliance getting its starting point any nearer.

NATO was created to fight the soviet union, not russia, if they wanted to crush russia they could attack the country in the 90's were it was in shambles and can't do shit but instead they helped to stabilize it, bring Russia into institutions like OSCE, the G8, G20, signed a lot of trade agreements... It was like everyone tried very hard to, you know, stabilize the country and lay a good democracy... what an strange behaviour for an "hostile military alliance" right?.

By the way if they use tac nukes it's game over, MAD is still a thing you know.

>>31057891
>You better just use daysight and flares. Intensification sights were a mistake.
Night-fighting capability was a mistake? Someone's mother caught zika while carrying him to term.

>this is what vatniks believe
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

>>31057948
>Saddam's military was nothing really impressive

That's what everyone says after a nation fights the USA.

Before: "X so stronk"
After: "X was shit all along"

Today: "Russia so strong"
Tomorrow: ...

>>31058313
>Ok, now let's count the trend of military spending of all the NATO countries, new and old and the size of their militaries. The trend is downward every year, for these countries NATO membership it's just a political step to be accepted into the west europe sphere. But on size and spending, NATO didn't grow, it got smaller and smaller.
In comparison to the Russians they still dwarf them in spending. Power is relative thing you know.

>Yes, please go to RT and read the political statements. They are always remembering the USSR and how they were respected.
Its the opposite when I search for RT articles, with Russia portrayed as the victim of NATO aggression, not that I believe they are blameless.

>NATO was created to fight the soviet union, not russia,
It was always Russia. Just because they changed the name doesn't mean the raison detre stops.

>f they wanted to crush russia they could attack the country in the 90's were it was in shambles and can't do shit
Yeah, and get pumped full of nukes in turn- game over.

>helped to stabilize it
Not out of goodwill but for pragmatic reasons. For instance forcing Ukraine to give up its nukes- nobody wants a rump state with working nukes.

>OSCE
As a European country with lots of clout especially military it only makes sense to include them

>G8, G20
They still possess one of the biggest economies on the planet at those times

>signed a lot of trade agreements
a large market is always a plus. Not to mention WTO fucked the Russians hard.

>By the way if they use tac nukes it's game over, MAD is still a thing you know.
Its the "One flies, rest flies as well" meme. You would've thought this shit was buried already, or would you rather we send the oppenheimer signal?

>>31058934
>That's what everyone says after a nation fights the USA.
Vietnam and Korea were disparaged as a bunch of gook peasants that would get slaughtered by the gallon in the media of the time you know. Not unlike the Japanese in WW2 with their paper planes that can't even fly in the rain and shit.

>>31058985
>Oppenheimer signal

The same one that laughed in your face about how the west wants a destabilized and broken up Russia?

>>31058992
Do you have an example from the past 40 years or are you going to pull your pud to an era when integrated circuits didn't exist?

>>31059021
>The same one that laughed in your face about how the west wants a destabilized and broken up Russia?
Where did I say the west wants a destabilized and broken up Russia? Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

>>31059048
Do you need to be spoonfed everytime you eat? How are you even typing?

>>31058915
Night-fighting '''''capability''''' was a mistake. Such capabilities were nearly useless IRL and costed a shit-ton, it was a waste of resources.

>Just because i keep saying it doesn't make it true.
Should be tattooed on every vatnik forehead.

File: ISU-152.jpg (66KB, 604x403px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 604x403px

>>31037036
>Russia was just a shitty monkey model of the Soviet Union anyway (which isn't too inaccurate to be fair)
nah, China is the true monkey model of the Soviet Union.

>muh 1 million strong Chinese army
>poorly equipped
>poorly trained
>absolute lack of any real combat experience
>almost no ability to project force beyond Mr. Wang's front porch
>does not achieve parity with Western militaries and probably never will

meanwhile:
>the Cold War-era Soviet Army was 5 million strong (excluding WARPAC forces)
>well-trained
>well-equipped
>experienced
>surpassed NATO military strength until the mid-80s

it's a mystery to me why anybody takes the Chinese seriously, they are a joke compared to what we up against during the majority of the Cold War.

Modern-day Russia isn't really like an export model T-72, it's more like an old ISU-152 rusting in a back lot and covered in green spray paint. It harkens back to simpler days when things were simpler and more certain while being hopelessly obsolete and irrelevant in reality. The green paint makes the gun look new from a distance but fails to conceal the rust and decay upon closer inspection.

>>31059183
>Night-fighting '''''capability''''' was a mistake. Such capabilities were nearly useless IRL and costed a shit-ton, it was a waste of resources.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>31037296
>it is overall a depressingly accurate depiction of how projects in general operate in the Pentagon and the kinds of people who are in power, and what they'll do to keep that power at any cost.

I cannot think of any time anyone has said anything otherwise about any institution.

Like, I've never heard anyone say, "I worked at ABC for XYZ years and everything was run surprisingly efficiently. The people in charge were all extremely competent and everyone's chief concern was the well being of the people below them and society at large. Nobody seemed to value their their job title or paycheck above their personal integrity at all!"

The fact that people keep expecting the above is just naivety and unfounded idealism.Human beings aren't perfect.

>>31059273
>Modern-day Russia isn't really like an export model T-72, it's more like an old ISU-152 rusting in a back lot and covered in green spray paint. It harkens back to simpler days when things were simpler and more certain while being hopelessly obsolete and irrelevant in reality. The green paint makes the gun look new from a distance but fails to conceal the rust and decay upon closer inspection.
Can't be any farther from the fact. Without the baggage of an outdated idealogy to prop up as well as the third world shitholes on its periphery, modern Russia is poised to pretty much retain Great Power status, and they don't even need to pool their powers like the eurocucks to do it. It doesn't need to be much more powerful than US or China, it just needs to be powerful to be able to tip the scales decisively on either's favor even accounting for the poo in loos or the eurocuck voltrons on the other side, and it is. In this sense its more like the T-14, a new paradigm since forever that leverages how much the realities changed in the decades since the Cold War.

>>31059284
Come back when vatniks stop illuminate targets with target mounted lamps during night fire practice.

>>31037807
Belarus is trending Westward too. They told Poutine to fuck off about an airbase not too long ago.

File: image.jpg (26KB, 172x244px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 172x244px

>>31036204
This is some Hiroshima never surrender-level bait

>>31059339
>russia
>great power
You very clearly do not understand that term.

>>31060012
>Belarus is trending Westward too
No they aren't. Dictatorships, especially the last in Europe tm, are kind of allergic to the west right now what with the Maidan coup and Syria regime change attempt.

>They told Poutine to fuck off about an airbase not too long ago.
Bitch be salty he can't even hang the spectre of a NATO base in Belarus to exact concessions from the Russians.

>>31059373
>Come back when vatniks stop illuminate targets with target mounted lamps during night fire practice.

>>31060283
>You very clearly do not understand that term.
You two very clearly are retarded.

>>31056910

>50% of Russian air combat losses were from friendly fire.

Which strongly implies that they had relatively few losses to the enemy.

>>31058313
>MAD is still a thing you know.
>Not knowing the MAD doctrine was abandoned in the 1970s
This nigga doesn't know about Tactical Nuclear Warfare.

>>31060012
>They told Poutine to fuck off about an airbase not too long ago.
It was election pandering for the most part, dude flipped in the end anyway.
http://www.rbc.ru/politics/11/10/2015/561a2dd59a79472a1f9ca683