So what was the verdict? I heard people hate these things

>>32165315
Everybody hates everything here, except shitposts

I'm a fan. though stykers are more comfy.

File: METALBOXES.jpg (115KB, 774x962px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 774x962px

>>32165315

>>32165315
Mike Sparks sez A+

>>32165315
It was good back in the 80s, and its still okay. Some newer IFVs are a bit better the I would not call the Bradley outdated.

However in your pic you have a M6 Linebacker wich doesnt even exist anymore.

>>32165315
I was on the damn things in Iraq and they are not good for anything other than parking at a TCP and being a stationary gun platform, if hit they either rolled over or burned usually burned.

>>32165315
I was Infantry and I don't even know what that is.

>>32165315
The only people who hate these things are memers.

Just like the osprey and the f-35

>>32165315
ODS models and above have 30mm APFSDS resistance on all sides. I would say that is pretty damn impressive for its time and still decent by today's standards. It's good at killing tanks and conventional armored assaults, but for asymmetric warfare there are much more cost effective alternatives.

>>32165315
Is that giant missile launcher?

>>32165738
those are stinger missiles.

>>32165315
I was with 3/7 Inf 3ID during the Invasion. I rode in one of those all the way from the boarder to the airport. Those shit talkers in the 82nd, 101 and 10th Mnt? they rode in open trucks and policed up the trash we left on the side of the rode on the march north. I did a 2nd tour in Iraq in a mech unit, and I wouldn't have had it any other way. Yeah, working on them suck dick, but have a giant support by fire position with you is great.

>>32165315
I hate vehicles without v-shaped undersides. I rode around in a fennek in afghanistan and when those fuckers hit a ied it's game over.

>>32165762

Not long enough range IMO.

>>32165852
Army has cooler shit.

In the Marines we had Humvees, 7 tons, and Mraps.

>>32165946
Thats why all M6s are retired.

>>32165852

Did you ever engage anything with the FPWs?

File: 1462672129314.jpg (971KB, 4147x2216px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 4147x2216px

>>32165315
I fucking love the bitch. Just do. I am so far opinionated that I cannot provide any genuine response other than professing love for it.

>>32165315
Why even have APCs or IFVs that can't protect against anything more than .308? Are they actually any safer than a jeep or Humvee that can drive faster and be disembarked from quicker? Or safer than hitching a ride on a tank? From what I understand, most soldiers choose to ride on top of Bradleys instead of inside them anyway.

>>32166267
Kek, nice one

>>32166072
Did you marry one yet?

>everyone hates bradley because of anecdotal evidence they heard one time from a guy that knew a guy

Everyone who has actually utilized them appreciates the flexibility (and comfy troop compartment) they provide. 25mm is a very effective weapon system. The tow missiles are eh, when they work it's cool as fuck but I've seen them fly off in weird directions because of malfunctions.

>>32166267
Except a Brad is armored up to 50 cal....? Stryker will be ripped up by an rpk.

>>32167504
>discredits anecdotal evidence
>gives anecdotal evidence

>>32166267
>>32167504

The Brad is rated for 30mm AP (and RPGs) all around, the Stryker is rated for 14,5mm.

>>32166267
This is proper level bait. Nice job, anon.

>>32165946
It's plenty long enough if there's a Iraqi or Russian hind bearing down on you that just popped up from behind a hill back when that was a real possibility.

As opposed to just dying because you have no tactical AA. It's a serious oversight for the Army to have just given up all SHORAD options and just trust that the Chair Force is capable and willing to cover them. There's plenty of white papers out there that suggest they cant and wont. All it takes is a few RWs to render enter BCTs combat ineffective. We wont be fighting just sand people forever.

>>32165852
how many vision blocks did ya get shot out by the Fedayeen?

I can dig them, except that the inside is loud as FUCK. Females like them cause they vibrate, or so I'm told.

File: 3573578.jpg (1MB, 1883x1502px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1883x1502px

>>32165730
This. It killed more Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm than the M1 did.

File: am-general-hmmwv-m1151-06.jpg (43KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 800x570px

why couldn't I go to a mech unit instead of light infantry bullshit

File: 1470379910767.jpg (761KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 1280x960px

>>32165315
mechanized infantry best infantry

>>32169332
I was a marine. I like Navy dudes. Explain how battleships won the war. I'm literally drunk and going to smoke a bowl Wtf?

>>32169369
99% sure that was pic unrelated, he was referring to the Bradley.

>>32165315
TOW'S UP HE'S READY TO KILL

SEE THE ENEMY TAKE HIS SOUL

SOO EARLY
hey
SOO EARLY
hey
SOO EARLY IN THE MORNING

>>32167504
>>32167577
I was told that 20mm or larger will ring your gong hard enough to make you wish you were never born if you're inside a Bradley. Is that just fuddlore?

>>32169360
Those guys aren't Infantry tho...

>>32169390
isn't that true for any armored vehicle?

It's amazing tank crews themselves don't get splattered even if their vehicle survives a 30mm shell.

File: 14352581_293534664364853_85987874322205237_o.jpg (126KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1280x720px

I'm the lone mutant who prefers the Stryker but the Bradley is alright.

>>32169381
Some guy said they aren't tanks. He was a pog and I believe him. I was lied too?

>>32169441
They're infantry fighting vehicles.

>>32167504
Flexibility?

You mean throwin track right?

Comfyness?

My ass trying to get 4 dudes sleeping in one in colorado is hell.

>>32169345
a 20 minute ride crammed in the back of an M2 with your teeth rattling out and you would be happy to be back in that 5 ton truck.

File: 1472107311741.jpg (94KB, 800x548px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x548px

better than this jewish abomination

>>32169460
What the fuck. I was Marine Infantry, we didn't have that. Shit man it's like not even cool.

>>32165315
does it have a potty?

>>32169486
APCs are not IFVs. Namer works for the IDF because it can crawl all over the local clay, is dramatically better protected than your run-of-the-mill APC, and that's all they need. Shit like airlift wasn't a factor.

>>32169441
A Bradley isn't a tank. That doesn't mean it can't kill tanks. The gun won't do much, but they carry BGM-71 TOW missiles. TOW is a beast and will kill pretty much anything you can hit with it.

>>32169497
The Marines would rather spend their money on amphibious vehicles that never get made, and then end up putting the grunts in AAVs.

File: 1463853136586.jpg (3MB, 3267x1838px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3267x1838px

>>32165852

I like this guy.

There is no force in the world that could stand against a Cold War style US Armored Cavalry regiment or similar.

Now they have these faggy brigade combat teams with faggy wheeled vehicles that would get incinerated by conventional, Russian-style MLRS as we've seen in Ukraine.

Even worse are the light infantry faggots and special forces, who can't even hold theirs in direct contact with irregulars, without multi-million dollar Tac Air assets.

>>32166072
>all those bolted on addons
top fucking kek american ingenuity everyone

>>32169586
>throwing away old tanks

no wonder europeans have such a shit defense industry.

we literally still use the 64 year old B-52, while you can't even into bombers.

File: 1307318375190.jpg (16KB, 430x273px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 430x273px

>>32165315
I'd love to convert one to a mobile home.
Would it be doable if you cram in just the absolute necessity?

It might not be proper comfy, but comfy in the sense that it'll give a real security feeling.

>>32169606

Overdose for sure.

>>32169606
just stick in a cot and replace the turret with some kind of RV thing. It'd be comfy just driving the thing around 2bh

File: 5[1].jpg (160KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 650x366px

>>32165315
but how does it compare to the cv90?

>>32169462
Not sure how getting them to sleep somehow involves your ass, but as long as you yell no homo..

>>32165315

If you have to hose it off at the washrack or skin your knuckles or bust a gut dealing w/ a thrown track you will hate this whore like no other. Riding inside smells like ballsweat and the being stuck behind a bigrig in standstill traffic w/ your windows open. And the seats- either the benches of crew stations took their design cues from the fuckers that made Blue Bird school buses so motoring across country is like getting your kidneys beat by a German domina.

Yet... when you need to smoke enemy IFVs, softskins and deal w/ the occasional raghead stuck behind a berm or a dirka dirka hut... you gain respect for the Brad's weapons systems and its ability to lay hate and discontent due to its brettygud fire control system.

Shit could be better- such as a full nine swinging dick dismount squad (as opposed to half dozen fuckers that get kicked out and pointed to the direction of the nearest enemy foot mobile). The chain gun could be bigger. The TOW could be replaced by the Javelin, etc etc.

>>32169645
The CV 90 was developed in the late 80s (Strf 9040) so its a newer. And therefore also a bit better at pretty much everything, especially mobility.

>>32165315
Is that a fucking Rhino?

>>32169645
Bigger gun, but no TOW. Better engine, faster but less fuel makes for shorter range. Same number of dis-mountable grunts.

The fact it was designed with artic warfare in mind makes me wonder how it would perform in Wherethefuckistan.

>>32169760
Danes and swedes has had CV90s in Afghanistan, they did fine.

There was also a verision with a RBS-56 ATGM system developed, but due to doctrinal reason it was never ordered.

>>32165315

>i heard people hate these things

Well some people will. Generally when things come along shooting at you and shitting out organisms that also shoot at you there is no reason to like them

>>32169760
grunts inside carry the atgms.
and it can carry a full euro squad of 8 guys

>>32169409
That is complete fuckin fuddlore.

>>32169369
Pic was unrelated. Although the BB's Tomahawks and shore bombardment did likely take out more men than the M1 as well.

File: iowa flag wallpaper.png (4MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x1440px

>>32169369
Foreveralone sandnigger manlets were unable to resist the power of Iowa class deck guns.

>>32169369
They didn't

>>32169566
I hope Trump will bring make our armor units great again.

>>32169602
We just sell 'em on, Amerifat, while you bolt shit on until they can't fucking move and end up having to spend an ungodly amount of cash designing a new one that'll end up shit anyway.

>B-52s
Only because your military industrial autists keep fucking up the intended replacements or do nothing but jew the gov't out of R&D cash

>>32169756
m e t a l
b a w k h s e s

>>32170132
You mean the B-2 and Minutemen?

Those do the job the B-52 used to do, and they do it really well.

As it turns out, when you have an airframe that's already built and in service, it's cheaper to use that than to build something new to act as a general purpose bomb truck.

>>32170132
The B-52s still work. Why would we stop using them? Our air superiority is such that we could use a fucking Sopwith Camel for CAS if someone figured out how to let it target and drop JDAMs.

>>32165315
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

Dont listen to the welfare queens in this thread, of course they will defend the militarys shitty money products.

>>32170220
How did i know it was going to be the pentagon wars before it expanded?

>>32169586

"Don't fix whats not broken"

Ever hear of this saying dumbshit? This tank with "bolted on shit" is still better than shit developed in the "current year".

You have a perfectly good tank and 1 thing pops up that can cause it problems. Do you, A. scrap the tank and waste time and money developing something new to counter that 1 threat, or do you B. Attach add-on armor that nullifies that threat and you continue using a strong platform?

neck yourself

>>32165666
In the words of one of the guys who was in charge of testing it during development this things has enough firepower to level a small town but less armor then a leaf blower.

>>32170252
>what the fuck is this gay "jet" shit
>just up-gun a Mustang and stop whinging, faggot

>>32170232
What else could it be?

>>32169760
IIRC there's a bolt-on Spike module for CV90s avalible.

>>32170264
Thats cute, being that it has more armor than any of its contemporarys, and compareable armor with modern IFVs.

>>32170278
Now it's obvious you are trolling.

Comparing a Bradley to other IFVs with a Mustang to Jets is something only a special breed of retard could pull off.

File: lounginggrills.png (2MB, 960x792px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x792px

>>32170327
>aluminium armour

>>32170300
Not him but I figured it'd be a sparky video extolling the virtues of the Gavin compared to it. ofc Pentagon Wars was a close second.

>>32170252
>>32170278
>>32170341
Not him, but there are points where incremental upgrades just won't cut it any more, especially when you reach the limit of how much the original design was futureproofed (cough cough Nimitzes), or where the counter to a new threat needs the a whole new design. To carry on in the same vein as anon,

>what the fuck is this gay "MRAP" shit
>just keep up-armouring humvees and stop whinging, faggot

>>32170387
Until you learn it has spaced laminate armor.

>>32170420

And here is where the saying "Don't fix whats not broken" doesn't apply. It's not fucking omnipotent. For your example, at a point, Humvees became broken against the threats. However this does not apply to the upgrades given to Abrams and Bradleys.

File: 1480003602339.png (184KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1000x1000px

>>32170065
MORE 2560X1440 MAGA WAIFU backgrounds pls

>>32169246
>It's a serious oversight for the Army to have just given up all SHORAD options and just trust that the Chair Force is capable and willing to cover them. There's plenty of white papers out there that suggest they cant and wont.
>Can't and won't
This concerns me. Why are US services so awful at working together?

>>32165315
hated it for years until i worked on strykers for years. not to say i hate it any less after, just less than i hate strykers now.

theyre both pieces of shit designed to be upgraded or replaced much sooner than the life spans of most of the units currently still rotting away in line unit motorpools

but that's just the biased opinion of someone who's worked inside and around them every day for 6 years, and is certified by BAE to teach an OPNET for bradleys

>>32171103
americans feeling entitled to everything

>>32171103
dick waving. you see this shit in anything larger than just one person working on something. sure people at the start works fine but then time for credit and money comes and everyone want what they think is theirs. it doesn't help the the air force is a spinoff branch of the army so they have little brother issues.

>>32170264
>>32170327
>>32170387
Aluminum/magnesium alloy

the hatches will literally melt shut on you if hit by any serious incendiary threat. the position of the 25mm ammo racks inside the turret, and the total lack of crew protection against any kind of detonation in those ammo racks literally guarantees that the entire crew will die. meanwhile spare ammunition is kept directly beneath the dismount benches/tow racks in the back.

25mm primer needs ~4lbs of force to fire

>>32171280
>Aluminum/magnesium
MMMMMM now all we need is some iron oxide and things will get real fun

>>32170442
It's funny because broken is being used literally in this context.

They will visibly melt apart before your eyes like a time lapse video if hit by any serious directed munitions WP ATGM or mortar

>>32165995
My drill sergeant said the Marines had next to nothing for vehicles. He said his unit went into an area to take over from the marines and all they had on site was handful of 7 tons and a couple Humvees. Any truth?

>>32173118
We had vics when I deployed in 2007. But yeah, our 7 tons didn't have any armor. It was a real What The Fuck thing.

Also I was deployed in a place that was only supposed to get 4 inches of rain a year. We got 6 in 1 fucking day. A guy almost died because he slept under 1 to get out of the rain. Had to drag his ass out because vehicle sunk. At the end of deployment I found out we had tents, they just didn't give them to us. That's what we refer too as the green weiner.

>>32169390
I imagine that's partially true. I certainly wouldn't want to be hit by it even if it didn't penetrate anything important.

>>32169862
Incorrect. Especially for the newer models.

>>32175044
its correct, i've been inside a norwegian mk3.
it has the same room inside as the earlier versions.
the main purpose of the IFV in scandi doctrine, is to carry a squad, thats like on the top of the requirements

>>32171280
Except the entire hull is covered in spaced steel/laminate, it has been this way since 1988's M2A2.

All brads are now M2A2 ODS (E) or M2A3, the latter cranking up the armor more.

Only the armor frame is aluminum.

>>32169360
If I never see another track it'll be to soon.

>>32175147
As the models went forwards, seats went down as more upgrades were placed in that space. The C model, for example, only has seating for 6.

Of course, there is the old joke, "How many cav scouts can you fit into the back of a Bradley? One more."

>>32175173
the swedish cv9040 is a special case. its just an add on upgraded old cv90. the newer 9030s mk3s have all the same jazz but with room for a whole squad. its a new hull

the 70 year old 40mm bofors they use doesnt help with space either

>>32165852
Cottonbalers By God!

>>32169514
It's called the Troop Door

>>32169566
I'm reading Team Yankee right now.. bad fucking ass

>>32169860
Now I understand why Americans hate blacks.

>>32165315

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

File: 1415742804129.png (13KB, 640x712px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x712px

>>32176619

File: 1344455107392.jpg (33KB, 310x310px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 310x310px

>>32176619

File: 1472795762677.jpg (184KB, 774x1032px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 774x1032px

>>32171103
Air Force is out to win the 'Air War', Ground Forces are trying to 'Hold Ground', Navy is out to win the 'Guirre de Course'. Each is a distinct part of winning 'The War' and each service gets OCD about their role and comes to believe it is the only one that matters.

Now with some justification, the Army is probably the one that is right, albeit if only because the other services are definitely wrong. Air and Sea Power alone cant win wars or achieve victory conditions, you ALWAYS need boots on the ground(or at least the threat thereof) to force submission of the opposition. Therefor the Air Force and Navy's true purpose really is to facilitate the role of the ground forces(Army/Marines) but that is a REALLY bitter pill for them to swallow operationally.

File: LGS_Fennek.jpg (262KB, 956x457px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 956x457px

>>32165919
And how was the Fennek?
Seems like an updated BRDM-2 to me.

>>32177434
You're not wrong, but air and sea power have become just as necessary in breaking the backs of the enemy. This is especially true when facing a well-equipped, somewhat contemporary force, or deploying to remote places. Waging a war in SE Asia without the Navy and Airforce would be just as impossible without CSGs as it would be without landing forces.

>>32177434
I disagree somewhat with this. All the services have the same end goal, and all of them realize that troops on the ground are needed for that. The problem is that each of the services believes that there is a different prioritization of actions that will achieve the maximum effect. For example, if the Army had its way, the Air Force would almost solely be doing CAS, however the Air Force (rightly) believes that Interdiction is the better way to destroy enemy forces. The Air Force believes that the Army doesn't think fully about the whole breadth of airpower's capabilities and the operational and even strategic depth they are able to achieve.

There is a grain of truth to this. Each service has its own perspective based on the experience they have with the entities in question. Army knows Army, Navy knows Navy, Air Force owns Air Force. This is why the Joint Forces Commander needs to have a good staff that is willing to work together and (crucially) argue with each other when necessary, but drop it all once they have decided on a course of action to follow and pursue that singlemindedly.