>Americans genuinely believe that this is a good vehicle despite

File: bradley_ampv725.jpg (54KB, 725x408px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 725x408px

>>31173716
>At least it's getting replaced soon
lol no
In fact they're making more of them without a turret to replace the M113
The new M109A7 Paladin PIM now uses Bradley components for increased commonality
Bradley is here to stay

>>31173716
>Anon genuinely believe his opinion matter
Sad

>>31173766

Wow.

Americans really are the most retarded people on Earth.

File: 1468141155090.jpg (52KB, 564x369px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 564x369px

>>31173807
>Americans genuinely believe that this is a good vehicle

C O M B A T P R O V E N

>>31173716
Considering that they were just fine at shreking tanks during Desert Storm, I'd say they're good. But this is a bait thread so I don't expect much to come of this.

>>31173996
using the tows or the chain gun?

>>31174059
TOW.

>>31173716
How much ground combat experience do you have? Is this hog wash opinion based only on video games or shit you read on the internet?

>>31173716
>Americans are fucking retarded
more news at 11

>>31174059
>>31174059
Mostly TOWs, there's hearsay stories of Bradley's getting mission kills on T-55s and T-62s by point blanking them with their Bushmasters and fucking up optics and treads.

Shitposting aside, there are only 2 western tracked IFVs that have fought in a modern maneuver war, and those are the Bradley and the Warrior. Both performed their jobs exceptionally well, and to call either a shit vehicle makes you look like a drunken vodkanigger who jizzes himself over their shit BMP variant whose only good good performance in combat was slaughtering a bunch of defenseless Hungarian peasants.

>>31173716
Didn't we have a nearly identical OP around a week ago with a picture of a Bradley firing a TOW?

File: implying.jpg (88KB, 490x516px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 490x516px

>>31173996
>just fine at shreking tanks during Desert Storm
>monkey-model T72s and clapped-out T-55s

>>31174544
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5gAkna3jI

File: Warrior 40mm turret.png (1MB, 1014x629px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1014x629px

>>31174551
To be fair, the Warrior got lucky. Very, very lucky. That thing didn´t have automatic elevation or a stabilised gun, things its only getting now with the 40mm CTA gun. The Bradley had a stabilised gun, the BMP-1 did, the Marder did, there was/is simply no excuse for the Warrior not having a stabilised gun or automatic elevation.

And this is coming from a Brit, Im not a butthurt American or a Russian on /k/.

File: UWkzrbi.jpg (90KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1000x668px

>>31174649
BMP-2 I meant, not BMP-1. Pls excuse the typo.

>>31174583
>T-72 and T-72M1
>monkey model

>>31174649
Are there current IFVs that can resist a 40mm gun? Aside from tank conversions like the Namer.

File: 1384066134836.jpg (255KB, 1600x1052px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1600x1052px

Are these Warriors?

File: 1470050586821.png (117KB, 1208x782px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1208x782px

>>31174551
>all either a shit vehicle makes you look like a drunken vodkanigger
Well, it could also make you look like a Gavin-worshipping memelord who takes Pentagon Wars and BlacktailDefense vidoes at face value. Though the lack of its mention and the le stupid americans ))))) in the OP leans toward the former.

>>31174701
It had a 30mm RARDEN during the Gulf War and Gulf War 2: Electric Boogaloo. The 40mm is the new one. I doubt most IFVs could survive a hit from a 40mm CTA, apparently its a more powerful round than the Bofors 40mm.

Point is though, if you´re on the move, the gun would be less accurate, you have to manually elevate the gun, which means ou get tired quicker and could be near impossible if you´re injured.

>>31174701

I honestly don't see the point of a 40mm gun on an IFV. It limits the amount of ammunition you can carry too much. An IFV already has limited space for ammo because it has to hold people as well.

File: 40mm CTA.jpg (118KB, 1120x492px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1120x492px

>>31174897
Because the ammo is smaller in the CTA than it would be in a regular 40mm cannon, it works out well enough, at least the French and British MoDs think so.

Apparenly there is very little room for improving the ammunition but I haven´t read into that yet so I can´t really be sure.

>>31174897
Have you been inside one? I would wager not. Crates of ammo and grenades are stored under the seats. There is more than enough space to pack ammo.

File: 10603332_1456308407970504_1587629797500606545_n.jpg (69KB, 720x408px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 720x408px

The Bradley rocks, if a bit maintenance intensive. It excels at it's mission which is to support the infantry advance, and fuck up the enemy's world, up to and including mbt's.

>>31173807
Retarded, cheap, and lazy, also keen to ride on the idea that their vehicles are "good enough"

>>31174059
TOW there's a World's Greatest Tank Battles episode on the Battle of 73 Easting where it talks about a Bradley using it's chain gun on tanks while another reloaded it's TOW.

The rounds pretty much bounced off and the gunner was sure as shit the tank was going to fuck their shit up, but luckily they reloaded the TOW in tike to knock it out.

>>31174583
>implying those tanks aren't monkey model tier in the first place

IFVs are great though, I would even go so far as to say they're more important than Tanks.

>>31175133

For current wars, definitely yes. The Abrams is a beast but it rarely gets to go out and do its thing anymore. Of course, if the government wasn't filled with pussies they'd just take a battalion of abrams out to where ISIS is and crush them all.

There's that one naval shitposter who 'subtly' tries to get people to shitpost British ships by falseflagging, I wonder if there's one that does it for Russians.

>>31174701
No.

>>31174701
Puma

>>31175172
you talking about battleship guy or am I thinking about somebody else?

>>31175190
Puma is STANAG 6 in its uparmored configuration, which is 30mm APFSDS.

>>31175195
No there's this one guy who really talks up the Type 45, which is a great ship to be fair. However he does it by asserting that Burkes and AEGIS are total shit in comparison, which usually leads to him getting BTFO along with anti-britposting.

>>31173716
It is flawed. But think of it this way. Even the worst American vehicle can rekt any Mongolrapebaby """"tank"""".

>>31175253
This.

Our shit may not be top of the line, but it can fuck up anything it'll face, and we have a lot of them.

>>31175241
He has more or less moved on from the QE and helicopter AEW.

>>31175269
If the bradley can fuck up anything it faces, world that not make it top of the line?

>>31174649
Don't forget that follow up shots are a pain as you have to manually bring the gun down yourself.

>>31175271
>QE and helicopter AEW.
Ahh I remember the guy now.

>>31175158
>take a battalion of abrams out to where ISIS is and crush them all
>"A entire US Army tank battalion was annihilated today by ISIS using American supplies ATGM's meant to be used against the Assad regime"

>>31175380
b-but US tanks have DU, unlike monkey model iraqi abrams
Praise jesus.

>>31175380
>ISIS
>using American supplies ATGM's

Stop mixing your memes vatnik.

>>31175414
It is kind of sad that you had to reply to yourself.

>>31175380
I don't think Americans would ever be as tactically retarded as Arabs or Russians in Grozny.

File: Coyote Priest, Nigga.jpg (119KB, 650x494px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 650x494px

>Europeans commenting on our affairs

We fought for that in 1776 and in 1812, and so God help me, we'll do it again.

OUR HEMISPHERE
OUR BACKYARD
OUR SOVEREIGNTY

>TFW slavboos will never not be bitterly mad over American supremacy
>B-but muh m-monkey models, T-those weren't REAL T-62s
lol, go make an Armata thread to make yourself feel better kiddo

>>31173716

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

FCS failed and was cancelled and replaced by the GCV

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

GCV failed and has been cancelled.

You're stuck with Bradley and Strykers now.

>>31175436
Im a different anon, not sure if thats better or worse in this case.

>>31175521
>You're stuck with Bradley and Strykers now.

And they are being upgraded with tech from both the FCS and GCV, so its all good.

>>31175521

>You're stuck with Bradley and Strykers now.

I'm very okay with this.

>>31173996
A horse-drawn wagon with a TOW launcher could take out Iraqi tanks, that doesn't mean it's a good IFV.

>>31175613
>Memes

>>31175521
>You're stuck with Bradley and Strykers now.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing

>>31175613
So what exactly is a 'good IFV' and why is the Bradley not one?

>>31175658

Good question. Before the Stryker, /k/ would point towards russian BMPs.

Then after Stryker, /k/ would shit on how it wasn't armored against .50cal/RPGs... and when it was armored and given a cage it was too heavy and too big to be airlifted.

...and so on and so on. Stuff like Trophy to defeat RPGs and making a new vehicle that has all the armor built in while sacrificing more internal space before one faggot comes in and starts saying the M113 is better and calling it a Gavin.

>>31175798
That didn't answer his question at all. Don't try and dodge the issue.

>>31175798
Strykers have always been armored against 14.5mm and /k/ didn't exist when they entered service.

>>31175798
The BMP-3 is not better than the brad, and it gets worse the more you go down

The brad has a massive armor advantage. It has far more autocannon rounds. The 100mm gun is only good for GLATMs, its too small for tanks and anything else the autocannon can handle. The engine placement is shit tier, restricting exfil.

I can go on and on.

>>31175658
The only people who genuinely believe the Bradley is not at least a decent IFV are people who think Pentagon Wars is a documentary.

Fucking Pentagon Wars, I swear.

>>31175873
Just one point about the BMP-3, the 100mm gun's HE-Frag is quite capable. When you look at the US Army's current MPF program, the BMP-3's 100mm gun fills that role actually surprisingly well. Then it also has an autocannon. Not sure why they made that decision

>>31175985
There is really no suitable target for the 100mm that would be unsuitable for the autocannon.

>>31175893
I know, I just wanted to see if anyone had any arguments besides blatant shitposting and Pentagon Wars memery.

>>31175920
Not a good documentary of the Bradley's development, but I know someone who worked in the Pentagon for years who saw it, and he said it's a pretty good example of how these kinds of programs often work.

>>31174649

> there was/is simply no excuse for the Warrior not having a stabilized gun or automatic elevation.

The answer is that the Rarden was designed to pack the biggest punch while having the least footprint inside the turret.

At the time, the British Army decided every combat vehicle should have at least a 30mm to kill the expected swarm of BMPs expected to charge across the North German Plains. They planned to upgun everything with the gun, including older vehicles and stuff with very small turrets.

Thus the Rarden was born, a 30mm gun that takes up about as much turret space as a 20mm gun. This comes at the cost of not having a proper feed system, no stabilization, and awful controls.

The MOD then proceeded to put the Rarden on everything except trucks, FV 432, and some really old shit they were planning to get rid of anyways.

>>31175856

Answer was given. The BMP.

Good IFV? Yes. Perfect? No. That's why /k/ will shit on any answer given.

>>31175859

Armored from the front against 14.5. Add-on kits upgrade the sides and back.

/k/ didn't exist but the proto-/k/ on SomethingAwful that would spin off to become 4chan did.

>>31176053
To add, the high velocity 105mm cannon on the stryker is far superior to the low velocity 100mm cannon. HEfrag is all it really has.

>>31174897

Sweden specified that it's CV90's have a 40 mm gun, because one of their requirements was being able to kill T-80/72/64 from the side, as well as using up their excess bofors barrels.

>>31173766
dafuq? Isn't the Stryker basically a replacement for the M113? I smell some good ol cronyism. The irony is it would be fulfilling it's original role as a troop carrier instead of an IFV. kek.

>>31176076
Soilders ride on the outside of the BMP for a reason.

Its litterally a deathtrap. The brad is better in every way.

>>31176095

See.

>/k/ will shit on any answer given.

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

470KB, 1446x952px

>>31176060
Well meme'd friend.

>>31176116
BMP's are not a good IFV, both Ukraine and Yemen are recent examples.

>>31176053
Fortifications and hardened structures. Trying to do significant damage to a building, especially made of concrete, with an autocannon is very difficult.
>>31176085
The Stryker MGS trades away its troop carrying ability for that. Low velocity guns mean you can keep it.

>>31176089
>Isn't the Stryker basically a replacement for the M113?

Strykers are not used in Armor Brigade Combat Teams.

>>31173766
You sure about that? My entire brigade just turned in every single one of our Bradley's. Also, we hate them universally.

>>31176117
I... that isn't at all an appropriate response.

I said the move was NOT an accurate or meaningful account of the Bradley's development, and therefore should NOT be taken to mean that any of those events actually happened.

But that the general air of backbiting, funding squabbles and politically minded officers more interested in deadlines and promotion than actual effectiveness seemed depressingly familiar to someone who's worked in the Pentagon for many years.

I wasn't claiming it was somehow a documentary of the Bradley's development. The thing you posted supported my point.

>>31176095
The BMP is a piece of shit in every fucking way compared to the Bradley

>>31176076
>Answer was given. The BMP.
That wasn't an answer to the question. The question is what makes a "good IFV" and why the Bradley isn't one. You didn't answer that question at all.

And why would you say the BMP series when the Bradley isn't?

>>31176161
Your dad works for Nintendo as well right?

>>31176164
>I know someone who worked in the Pentagon for years who saw it, and he said it's a pretty good example of how these kinds of programs often work

>>31176161
Yep. They aren't getting replaced. Name your unit, and we'll see if you're becoming an SBCT for budgetary reasons.

>>31176161
I use to hate them too (cleaning the road whells, fuck!), until i was in actual combat with them. They make being infantry a hell of a lot easier on the battlefield.

>>31173766
>the M113 is getting replaced by a turretless Bradley
I think I can hear Sparky reeeeeing from here.

>>31175322
No because there's quite a few things that will fuck a Bradley up.

>>31176362
That doesn't make an argument. By that notion, there is no good IFV or tank in the world.

>>31175893
>>31175920
>>31176054
While i dont think pentagon wars represents how the bradley specifically came to be, i have no doubt that accurately portrayed the DoD development process in general.

File: [Laughs in American].jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>31173766

>turret-less Bradley

so basically the original design

>>31176546
Pentagon Wars really should have been about the DIVAD. Now that's an actual case of DoD/MIC fuckery that produced a vehicle no one would deny was a total shitshow.

>>31176546
Not that you have any interaction with the DoD development process beyond an HBO comedy.

File: xm246_generaldynamics.jpg (843KB, 3450x2738px) Image search: [Google]

843KB, 3450x2738px

>>31176681
It's an example of corruption and bribes, as the competitors actually worked.

File: 1471050097173.jpg (31KB, 480x547px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x547px

>>31175613
buts where your wrong kid

>>31176718
I have interation with state and municipal procurement. Thats fucked up. I can only imagine what its like at the federal level.

Also, its pretty easy to point to fucked up DoD projects that they actually implemented.

>>31174551
>there's hearsay stories of Bradley's getting mission kills on T-55s and T-62s by point blanking them with their Bushmasters and fucking up optics and treads
>there's documented stories of Bradleys getting catastrophic kills on T-72s by point blanking them with their Bushmasters and igniting stowed ammo
Fixed that for you.

>>31174954
>Apparenly there is very little room for improving the ammunition
That's the big flaw of telescoped APDS/APFSDS rounds - you aren't getting any upgrades to penetrator length, no matter what.

>>31176195
We are transitioning to SBCT. Got rid of our paladins as well. What would be the budgetary reason for switching though? This whole shindig seems like it's costing a shit ton.

Honest questions. I'm just a team leader in a line unit. They don't tell me shit. All I know is our Bradley's went away and we're supposedly getting strykers in the next two years ish.

>>31177683
>Got rid of our paladins as well.
Tangent here:
SBCTs are going to need SP artillery if they are to ever be used against competent and well-equipped opponents.

>>31177683
>What would be the budgetary reason for switching though?
It's less expensive to operate. They're making your ABCT an SBCT and a National Guard SBCT an IBCT. You are, to the best of my knowledge, getting their vehicles.

And there's no Paladins in SBCTs. Only towed howitzers. As >>31177735 says, it's probably their biggest downfall. Even a 105mm SP howitzer would be vital to the mobility and thus survivability of the SBCT as a whole.

>>31177803
Dosent the stryker have a 120mm morter varient?

Seems like it will be good enough, fucker has a 7km range.

>>31177803
Nah, army MBCTs keep their brads, its the natty guard MBCT that are going to strykers.

>>31177953
Then I got it backwards. There is a regular army SBCT becoming an IBCT and a National Guard ABCT becoming an SBCT.

>>31177872
Correct. There are two of these mortar carriers per infantry company, with an additional four(I think) at battalion level.

But even so, self propelled guns are much better than towed, especially survivability and maneuverability wise.

>>31177982
Thats it. Pretty sure its to free up more brads for big army, while not completely screwing over the MBCT of the guard.

Honestly, SCBTs are pretty fucking hefty in regards to what it brings to the table. Hell, if they get the 30mm upgun to the post MBCT SCBTs, it will actuallt bring more than just a brad MBCT.

>>31177999
Of course, but if (realistically) a 120mm morter with 81mm morter dismounts will complete the mission, your not loseing much.

>>31178122
>but if (realistically) a 120mm morter with 81mm morter dismounts will complete the mission
That's not realistic at all. Show me these 81 and 120 mortars that can do deep fires. I'll be waiting.

>>31178168
>deep fires

High angle fires to get into defilade, or are you just talking pure range?

I mean, yeah, for the former a howitzer will get you more range, but realistically how much do you do max range fire with non RAP rounds? 7 km is not exactly spitting distance.

If its the latter than the 120 can do this.

Between the Bradley and the MRAP, which was the worse decision?

File: tmp_11424-images(2)143169746.jpg (8KB, 327x154px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 327x154px

>>31178251

>>31178251
Neither, because the guys that ride Bradleys used to ride in M113, and they would all tell you "fuck the M113".

Then the guys riding MRAPS all used to ride humvees, and if you asked, they would all tell you "fuck the humvee".

Seriously, if you've ever ridden an M113, it fucking sucks because the suspensions were designed to the same standard as an M48 Patton.

>>31178122
>Honestly, SCBTs are pretty fucking hefty in regards to what it brings to the table.
I love them. The Styker infantry company is fucking MEAN. More infantry than a Bradley carries, 2x 120mm mortars, and 3x Stryker MGSs with their 105mm guns. Sure, they aren't tanks, but they can do their job quite well.

As for the upgrades, while the 30mm is a great gun, and the RWS-J is very capable, I'd hesitate to use them like Bradleys. They're still light and vulnerable. I see them as more self defense. You need to be MUCH more careful with them, they're so much more lightly armored.

>Of course, but if (realistically) a 120mm morter with 81mm morter dismounts will complete the mission, your not loseing much.
First off, only the battalion mortars are supposed to have 81s for dismounted work. The company mortars are stuck with 60s.

Second, howitzers and mortars are complementary. For starters, just range. Howitzers shoot over twice as far as 7km. This allows for more things to be done with it- I highly doubt you're going to have your howitzers pushed up as close to the front lines as your mortars are, and if they are it's likely somethings gone wrong. So they're situated farther back but also need to shoot farther in, for isolating areas by fire or simply hitting the enemy farther back, including CS and CSS. Second, ammunition choice. Howitzers have more choices for ammunition and have more fun rounds. FASCAM and DPICM or whatever they're replacing it with are definitely extremely valuable rounds whose effects are not replicated by any mortar round I know of.

>>31178250
>7 km is not exactly spitting distance.
Yes it is, in terms of brigade operations. 7km is nothing.

>>31178307
>>31178296
Fair enough points on the 120.

I just figure, as manuver elements they would be complementary to the towed howitzers, and you would not lose much if, you trade both for m107s.

If im wrong im wrong.

>>31178382
They sure are complimentary to any sort of howitzer, but both the other anon and myself feel that the SBCT's usage of towed howitzers instead of self-propelled is a mistake.

>>31178382
The US hasn't used M107's for ~35 years.

A SPH for a Stryker BCT would need to be on a Stryker hull or something with similar strategic mobility.

File: M107-175-mm-gun-vietnam-2.jpg (55KB, 504x370px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 504x370px

>>31178382
>M107s
I wish :(

>>31178420

Could buy the Archer that the Swedes are so desperately sell.

For parts similarity, buy it on a stryker hull or a HEMTT trailer, but then you would also need an ammo replenishment vehicle.

>>31178454
I wonder if BAE's M777 Portee could be built around an FMTV instead of whatever truck it currently has.

File: 48544.jpg (72KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x540px

>>31174954
>Because the ammo is smaller in the CTA than it would be in a regular 40mm cannon,
But it is not. CTA ammo has largest case diameter among modern medium caliber calibers. Telescopic is mistake. Brits did it again.

>>31178420
>>31178432
M109, been up for 19 hours, y'all know what i meant.

No need for the tisims.

>>31178504
Telescoping makes the 40mm CTA half the length of a 40mm Bofors for the same punch, the question is does that make up for being fatter.

>>31178510
M109's are too big and heavy for a SBCT.

File: 466.jpg (84KB, 1070x797px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1070x797px

>>31178585
Who cares about length? Did you see layout of ammo conveyors? Round length will not affect conveyor capacity but diameter will.

>40mm Bofors
Yeah lets find something even more older.

File: stryker sph.jpg (120KB, 980x428px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 980x428px

>>31178469
>>31178454
>>31178420
There is a 105mm L/52 SPH variant of the LAV/Stryker that was never put into production.

http://www.gdls.com/products/stryker-family/stryker-sph.php
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/04_Vickory_105mm_Indirect_Fire.pdf

>>31178671
>Yeah lets find something even more older.
>CTA is advertised by comparing it to 40mm Bofors

>>31177649
Feel like it's important to note that a lot of these are shots to the turret top when the T-72s are dug into position.

>>31178759
Not that the side of a T-72 will stop a M919.

>>31178772
1. M919 was not used in Desert Storm.
2. Side of a T-72 will stop a M919 outside point blank range.

Whats needed is integrated drone spotters & guided munitions on all armored vehicles/artillery.

Sure you can say this direct fire munitions are cheaper, but you need to fire hundreds/thousands of rounds for the same effect as one well placed missile.

And as well you need to expose yourself to enemy fire

>>31178759
How the fuck are IFVs getting into position to fire down onto the turrets of dug-in MBTs?

How does your position possibly get overrun that badly, unless your tanks are absolute shit?

>>31178913
>2. Side of a T-72 will stop a M919 outside point blank range.

The turret side? Yes.

The hull side? Absolutely not.

>>31178952
Dust storms are like being on an alien planet.

>>31178938
Not you again.

File: 99.jpg (169KB, 779x761px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 779x761px

>>31178970
>The hull side? Absolutely not.
Estimation by Odermatt equation gives m919 82mm RHA penetration at point blank and perpendicular impact.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA361333

What sources did you use again?

File: 35216.jpg (2MB, 1920x985px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x985px

>>31178938
>Whats needed is integrated drone spotters & guided munitions on all armored vehicles/artillery.
It is called SPIKE ATGM. Why are jews so BASED?

>>31179122
Sure but thats anti-tank, and it looks like an old as fuck missile, could definately be improved.

File: 08914571.webm (3MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x480px

>>31173716

>>31173716
fuck off nigger, Bradley's will destroy whatever yuropoor shithole you are from.

t. Former Bradley Crewman

File: 1462332186138.jpg (598KB, 1682x1088px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1682x1088px

>>31173955
Dubs of truth.
>mfw kiddies born after 2007 don't remember that it took out more clanking sandniggers in the first gulf war than any other vehicle on the ground.

Bradley is better than Armata in every way.

>>31179146

>it looks old

that is a blisteringly retarded argument

>>31179151

did they just blow up a perfectly usable, fully stocked and abandoned lav?

>>31179634
>blisteringly
Adjective of the day.

>>31173716
>Who wants to bet that the next vehicle will be just as much of a joke?
the f35 is already a joke.

>>31179655
get back to your jazz, Pierre

>>31175455
1812 was started by the yanks because they were pissed off over impressment or something

>>31174551

At night there was a Bradley that was extended beyond the rest of its unit, and damn near ran into a T-72 that was hulled down. The Bradley crew, damn near shitting their pants, dumped its bushmaster into the tank, penning the armor and killing the crew.

That being said, it is important to note that the bushmaster penetrated the turret armor at a downward angle, while a nice anecdote, they were not expected to penetrate T-72s with the chain guns.

>>31179775
>Continually raiding ships of a sovereign nation, stealing their cargo, and impressing their crew into service in your navy isn't a legit casus belli. >Not to mention funding and provoking injuns into raiding frontier settlements.

>>31178251
I'll take the bait:

>not wanting decent-tier infantry support weaponry and better armour

>not wanting your vehicles to be mine-resistant when operating against insurgents

>not wanting your vehicles to be armoured against 14.5mm ammo

>not wanting a modicum of protection against RPGs where before there was practically none

>>31179809
bloody uppity colonials

>>31179803
The Iraqis were also kinda shitty at hulling down. They'd either put themselves too far behind the berms they set up to actually see anything, or too far up and not hit anything coming up on them because they couldn't depress their guns low enough.

>>31179834
I'm going to say this isn't quite true. If they were in a good prepared position and not expecting enemy attack (they weren't, they thought their reconnaissance screen exploding was aircraft bombing), you should probably not be hull down at all, but rather turret down. IE- your entire tank is hidden. Given how the Bradley crew didn't see the tank until they were LITERALLY right on top of it, nor were the T-72 crews prepared in the slightest, I think that's more likely.

>>31175419
uh..
M8, Opposition and ISIS have tons of fucking "Looted" american equipment and they're regularly seen using TOW launchers on liveleak. Infact if ISIS is armed by anyone, it's fucking the united states. Intentionally or inadvertedly.

>>31179921
Cold busted, can't be trusted

>>31180003
WTF does an M8 have to do with your statement?

>>31180020
He's meaning "mate". I was confused for a moment too.

>>31180020
>>31180022

It's fishy

>>31179113
That would mean that almost all slav tanks are immune almost to the 25mm firing m919 APFSDS rounds.

Since all of them starting from the T-54 have 80mm thick side hull armor.

>>31180014
I have no clue what you're saying here.

>>31178952
Maybe because they are not that well trained?

>>31179113
>What sources did you use again?

Whats the thickness of a T-72 hull side.

>>31178952
>How the fuck are IFVs getting into position to fire down onto the turrets of dug-in MBTs?
>How does your position possibly get overrun that badly, unless your tanks are absolute shit?


Americans had GPS, Iraqis had bumfuck nothing as well as an average IQ of 80. Do the math.

File: The glacis segments from several Polish T-72M1 or PT-91 tanks.jpg (218KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x600px

>>31180136
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.co.at/2015/06/the-armor-protection-of-t-72-tank.html

>>31173996

look even the F-15 jinked in circles against 60's era aircrafts and downed hundreds of them

>>31174551
>slaughtering a bunch of defenseless Hungarian peasants

I'm Hungarian, but I don't remember our peasants getting rekt by BMPs. Actually, we had BMPs.

>>31178273
disagree with you on the MRAP, that thing was way to tall, unbalanced had poor visibility and engagement capability. the only reason it existed was to so that you could get blown up more often and survive.

>>31175455

Well, exactly, you have your own hemisphere so US govt. please fuck off from Europe. I have no real problem with American people, but your government should stop playing world police.

>>31179639
probably its a bunch of dune coons

>>31180339
>you have your own hemisphere so US govt.
in their eyes it's the whole world and universe that is their hemisphere - ever heard of PNAC?

>>31176095
They ride on top of it because it's not used in the job it was meant for ; like the M113 in Vietnam and Bradley in Iraq and A-stan.

These were made to carry infantry and follow behind the tanks in a probably nuclear Third World War in Europe.
So, when they're taken out of their context and put in a completely different situation, it should be expected that they perform poorly. The only vehicles adapted to modern irregular warfare are the MRAPs, pioneered by Rhodesia and South Africa in the 70s-80s, and the heavy APCs/IFVs pioneered by the Israelis, made from main battle tank chassis and covered with spaced, slat, and/or reactive armor on all aspects to protect the crew and mountees from rocket/missile ambushes.

Even the most modern IFVs like the latest Bradley variants and BMP-3 are still made according to the Cold War vision of a fully mechanised regular, force-on-force battlefield.

>>31180349
>PNAC
>"The organization stated that American leadership is good both for America and for the world"

So if Nazis rise to power you bomb the shit out of Europe, when Soviets had satellite states, you destabilise them to third world shitholes cuz evil world domination attemps, but it's perfectly fine if the US does it... This is why I turned into a vatnik a few years ago.

>>31179113
>8mm diameter

That doesn't seem right.

>>31180043
>>31179113
The Steelbeasts folks came up with 100mm using the same formula.

>>31180409
dude, I'm a Serb. I just wanted to point out that conspiracy tier shit like PNAC officially exists.

>>31180430

I know you only stated facts, sorry I meant "you" as of US govt.

>>31180411
It is funny that he complains about no sources while making up numbers for M919.

>>31176089
Strykers are for light mechanized/airmobile units
Bradleys/M113 are for heavy mechanized/armored units

>>31176133
Ukraine is a extreme example.

In ukraine BMP's got hit by DPCM and thermobaric warheads fired from grads. As expected they got easily wiped out by artillery directed by drones.

I have not seen any footage of BMP's in yemen, but I have seen footage of saudi M113 and Bradleys getting lit up by houti rebels from close range or far away.

>>31180532
The Saudi army's ineptitude is not an argument why BMP's are a good IFV.

>>31176671
>B-b-b-ut pentagon wars was just a joke!
Has the US EVER been at the forefront of armored vehicle design ?

>>31176671
No MICV version nor the XM800 were without a turret.

>>31180409
>when Soviets had satellite states, you destabilise them to third world shitholes
The Soviets did that just fine on their own, but I'm sure as a 'vatnik' you'd just deny that and deflect it onto the US.

>>31175007
AND, it smells like motherfucking FREEDOM!

>>31173716
Well its not great as an armored personnel carrier, but it is great for beating up on obsolete soviet hardware and not costing as much to operate as an M1.

Honestly the Bradley reminds me of the Sherman in North Africa (when they weren't running into tigers)
>its got more than enough firepower to kill anything it runs into
>its fast enough to keep up with high speed movements
>it works well in the infantry support role
>can be pressed into a quasi anti armor role that it wasn't intended for
>if hit with a big round can set fire to its crew

so yeah its basically a sherman for the modern age and it just hasn't run into its tiger yet.

File: royal_pizurp.jpg (85KB, 1000x670px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x670px

>>31174583
>slavs on suicide watch

Even if there was a difference, they still got wrecked by vehicles that had no business performing anti tank rolls.

Hell, even with their shit teir Arab crews, transport vehicles knocking them out is just downright fucking embarrassing

>>31173955
It's a multirole workhorse with good endurance and can expect sufficient air and abrams fire support to exploit whatever niche opens up on the field, it's fuckedbyacommitee design was actually a godsend

>>31180786
>Even if there was a difference, they still got wrecked by vehicles that had no business performing anti tank rolls.
Then why put TOW on them? Why give them 25mm guns? Oh, thats right, they want them to kill tanks and anything on the battlefield that it could meet. It is a IFV, not a APC.

>>31180684
The Sherman, Bradley, Abrams etc.

>>31180781
Those sour grapes.

>>31180684
>>B-b-b-ut pentagon wars was just a joke!
Pentagon Wars IS a joke, though. At most you should take as a humorous if somewhat true take on the worst of government procurement in a very, very broad sense, because as a critique of the actual Bradley it's Sprey-tier.

File: 201.png (751KB, 834x481px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 834x481px

>>31180411
>the total length of flight vehicle is 153 mm
On this photo length is 674 pixels. So 4.4 pixels per mm. Width i estimate as 34 pixels. 34/4.4=7.7 mm.

>>31180484
Why can't you read entire post?

File: M2 Bradley with CT40.jpg (194KB, 2070x536px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 2070x536px

>>31178671

Except your own image proves you're talking horseshit. The two Warrior turrets that are the SMALLEST versions can host up to 68 rounds, while the VBCI which also carries 9 fully equipped troops in the back can carry 70.

In vehicles like the Jaguar, Ajax, VBCI 2 and new Warrior version, the turrets are much much bigger and can carry a bunch more for that very reason. When you can carry "more than" 70 rounds (some pointers on the old MilitaryPhotos site pointed at around 100+) of 40mm CT, all of that in a single load that doesn't need manually reloaded after 24 rounds or to change ammo type like a Bofors, then that is one hell of a load for an IFV, no matter who you are.

Now because this topic is about the Bradley, here's a picture of a Bradley with the CT40 out of interest.

>>31177672

There's more to improving ammunition than penetrator length, but yes, it's going to be interesting seeing how that factor is considered in the future. Given the power of the round, it's likely imagined that by the time that becomes a concern, the gun/platform itself will be getting changed anyway.

>>31178704

Never seen that before. Pretty frikkin sweet.

>>31182512
what IFV does bofors make that needs a manual reload to change ammo type?

>>31182114
Why are you asserting the XM881 is the same size and shape as the M919?

>>31174705
every british soldier is a warrior m8

>>31180339
Right well leave you to the Russians then.

File: Full circle.jpg (44KB, 410x640px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 410x640px

Bradley suffered heavily from mission creep but it will still fuck shit up.

>>31182621
Yeah. I watched your cohorts drop like flies in the summer on Fort Bragg's northern training area.

Super duper troopers, roger?

WTF did they call themselves? Paras or some shit from the 16th Air Assault.

>>31173716
>At least it's getting replaced soon.
>soon
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>31183358
I was there biatch.

a total of 2 people fainted from sun. A Lance corporal who should have known better going out into the field with food poisoning. And a trooper who failed to stay dehydrated.

i know the truth hahahahahahaha

fort bragg the home of the rangers, the pride of the US infantry. Rangers who were shown up by the slime of the Uk forces, the worst trained unit in the whole services, a unit made fun of for guarding naffis, being overarmed airport guards. A unit that is notorious for "shotted my owned osprey", that thinks a 5 mile run in full combat gear is "good". The unit is the special RAF regiment. Combat experience since never!

thank god a even mediocre unit was used,

shut the fuck up and get outta here mate

>>31180781
>implying the Sherman wasn't intended for use against tanks
This is the worst meme.

>>31183282
>>31176117

>>31183805
American doctrine placed an emphasis on the Sherman as more of an Infantry Tank than anything. The Gun Carriers like the M18 and M36 were designed to move up to deal with German armor when Sherman and Infantry met them. The M3 75mm could take out the Panzer III and IV, but doctrine did not place a large emphasis on the Sherman's AT capabilities.

>>31184035
>this meme again

Please stop

>>31183358
>>31183716

The bantz are in full force tonight.

>>31184035
>American doctrine placed an emphasis on the Sherman as more of an Infantry Tank than anything.
NOPE. Have you even read any of the FM 17 series from WW2? Any of them at all?

No. The Sherman tank was if anything like a cruiser tank. It is designed to penetrate enemy lines and run rampant in the backfield. Partially because of this, it was designed with a 75mm gun, which was a fantastic anti-tank weapon for the time. Further, if you read the FMs, you can see quite clearly that the Sherman was intended for use against enemy tanks, especially in the context of accomplishing its role.

As for tank destroyer battalions, they didn't exist to defeat a couple tanks. Instead, they were designed to counter the massive armored thrusts seen in the early war and in the East. You keep a reserve back to hit his armored concentrations with your tank-killing concentrations. Tank Destroyers could trade far more cost effectively than tanks in this role simply due to the fact that they were cheaper.

Face it, the Sherman was not designed as an infantry support tank. This is supported by nothing. This meme needs to die.

>>31180781
The Sherman didn't have two missiles that can kill any opposition armor almost 2 miles away.

>>31183282
give the tank a troop trailer
problem solved

>>31184729
>cross-country
it would have to be light enough to carry over their heads or somehow stowed above the tank

>>31184921
Why do you believe trailers can't go cross country?

>>31182512
>manually reloaded after 24 rounds or to change ammo type like a Bofors
You don't need to manually change ammo one push of a button and it's done.
Reloading from the carousel could be a bit of hassle but you can do it in just a few moments, not like the mess the tankers have with reloading the turret from the hull storage.
Still as I've heard it, the guys who designed the thing would have preferred if Sweden adopted the 30 mm or 35 mm variant but the 40 mm was chosen since there where truckloads of 40mm/L70 barrels lying around gathering dust.
The 40 mm cannon is a bit overkill against any contemporary russian IFV. The 3P rounds are pretty nifty but I'm sure something similar exists/is possible for a 35 mm gun.

>>31180781
>it is great for beating up on obsolete soviet hardware

What isn't?

>>31182114
>the total length of flight vehicle is 153 mm
>>31179113
>Total Penetrator Length 83

>>31179639

Maybe the Saudis had the presence of mind to take the key with them before they fled.

>>31182548
Can't you read?

>>31187038
>what is windshield, what is tracer

>>31187775
Nothing in the DTIC report you posted says the XM881 is a tungsten copy of a M919. It even points out the examples of XM881 they found didn't match the records they had for it.

>>31188031
>i can't read the post
What is YOUR sources of the M919 geometry again?

>>31188063
As you made the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof that XM881 has the same dimensions as a M919.

>>31188096
I did but you have problems with reading.

>>31188112
Cite where it says in that report that XM881 = M919.

>>31188163
Ask nice.

>>31188208
I accept your concession.

>Eurodumb talking about weapons
Post discarded. I don't ask niggers for their opinion on rocket science.

>>31185257

Contempary vehicles, yeah.

But those adopting the higher calibres are likely thinking of the newer, heavier ones. The whole "We'd prefer lower" was a growth from the time when people thought that hajis would be the only opponent from now on.

Now we're seeing craptons of nations going up in calibre these days because of the growth of heavier, better protected vehicles. South Korea and Japan went for 40mm and 35mm respectively, the UK and France are hopping to 40mm, the US is going from 25mm to 30mm and has 35mm to 50mm concepts sitting ready. The Russians are making a lot of motions toward 57mm. Estonia picked the 35mm CV90, Netherlands originally went for that too, as did Denmark. Australia has an option to go 35mm with their new vehicle.

>>31176095
>Soilders ride on the outside of the BMP for a reason.
That's because they can't afford MRAPs. When in a heavily mined area, the Bradley gets replaced with MRAPs because its mine protection is similarly dogshit. Doesn't help hull is aluminium which burns when hit by explosions or similarly violent impacts.

File: 18_c.jpg (101KB, 712x905px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 712x905px

>>31173716
>mfw our APC has killed more enemy tanks than your country's MBT

>>31180786
>Even if there was a difference, they still got wrecked by vehicles that had no business performing anti tank rolls.
Um, IFVs armed with ATGMs actually replaced the towed anti-tank gun in most doctrines bruh. ATGM teams on foot are vulnerable to getting shelled or just straight up bypassed from their killzones and enveloped; introduce them into a vehicle that is proof against arty shrapnel and blast effects, as well as could provide good mobility on even cross country and you got yourself a show-stopper against tank columns, forcing them to spread out in combat formation to envelope you and expend ammo and fuel suprressing you.

>>31175029
Then I really wonder what your God-tier country uses in it's many and various combat experiences.
Oh that's right, you buy our secondhand shit/use our designs, or you follow us into battle without taking the brunt of any major assault...
Of course, none of this "you" actually do because you're a faggot that bitched out on signing a contract and prefer to bitch on the internet about the people and gear that have been getting shit done for years.

That said, the Bradley isn't perfect, nothing is. But it's situational and it works and it has seen more action than any of your pleb shit.

>>31191064
>the Leopard 2 would definitely obliterate your thin-skinned APC!

Why do people even begin to have this argument? I don't get it.

File: 1472613625073.jpg (1MB, 2808x1834px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2808x1834px

>>31173716

Why didn't they just build something good?