This is a Bradley fighting vehicle. Say something nice about it.

What a nice christmas wreath you have

>>34045844
it's thicc

Probably the most valuable ground vehicle in the Gulf war.

>>34045844
why is the rear track protector plate in folded up position?

>>34045844
Killed T-72's innIraq and doesn't afraid of anything.

File: 1494933071327.png (716KB, 585x585px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 585x585px

>>34045844
That's a cute shortstack!

>>34045844
Doesn't have portholes, 8/10 would AFV again.

>>34045844
Kicked ass in WIC.

>>34045844
It's not a BMP-1

Doesn't fit a full squad in PR which is a pain in the ass

>>34045844
A good movie was made about it.

looks like a scimitar

>>34046530
>good movie

>>34045955
That's engine related, not Bradley related though.

The 25mm Bushmaster will tear up anything short of a MBT.

>>34045844
It lead to the stryker development being hastened

>>34045844

L A R G E

>>34046764
For you.

>>34045844
Oh hey it's the Light Tank featured in Command and Conquer Tiberium Dawn and Red Alert.

>>34045844
Performed damn fine in 73 Easting.

It breaks down a lot, smells bad, extremely uncomfortable to ride in, track pads wear out in a week, turret loses power for no reason, manual traverse is unusable, hard to to work on, and an overall pos.

>>34045844
>a green bradely

holy shit. Like seeing a green m1

It's better than a stryker...

>>34045844
WE WAZ TANKS N SHIT

Its ugly and a horrible death trap with no armor. Stupid diesel engine that breaks down and the tracks are shitty.
These are the only qualities I can think of.

File: 1495585692148.jpg (138KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1200x800px

>>34045844
Hello there

>>34045844
You don't smell as bad as you could, all things considered.

>>34045844
The only tank or something I've wanted to own. Looks comfy as fuck.

>>34047941
why would NORAD have a bradley?

>>34045844
atleast it isn't a stryker.

File: Boxer_Land_400.jpg (546KB, 1920x1285px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1920x1285px

>>34045844
is it good or bad by comparison to german ifv boxer
what happens if these two are pit against one another in battle

File: 18121223_1318197874902113_886046184844599348_o.jpg (307KB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 2048x1366px

>>34047727
Green is coming back for units in Europe.

>>34047936
>an apples to oranges comparison makes me look smart

>>34050909
Boxer curbstomps Bradley in range and speed, is more fuel efficient too.

Standard German config for the Boxer is underwhelming with just a 20mm and 7.62.
New built Lithuanian Boxers with 30mm guns and Spikes could kite indefinitely and shit all over Brads.

Brad would have the advantage at short range but loses out to the Boxer's more advanced weapons at further range.

>>34051018
>could kite indefinitely

You were doing so well up to this point.

>>34045844
Light tank rushes are overpowered.

>>34046641
good or bad it was making fun of the right thing

>>34045844
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

well, at least it's not undergunned.

>>34045865
Its armor sure ain't

>>34051313
>2017
>People still actually believe in this drivel

>>34045878
To let the sand and mud out so your track won't slide off the tension wheel in a turn.

>>34050909
>>34051018
>Bradley uses TOW
>Its super effective!

>>34051313
This is complete bullshit just meant to entertain you.

>>34051018

Boxer, those wheels give it a huge advantage

>>34046928
T. 1st "50% manpower 50% budget power, too big to sustain itself" cav e4 or below

Bradley is fine just dont be a 19D at fort hood. Literally where bradleys go to die slowly in motorpools with no training

File: 1459577589955.jpg (33KB, 491x404px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 491x404px

>>34051737
Better be trolling...

>>34045844
I like your box shape

The Bradley sometimes has a water heater in the back.
>making fresh coffee in your track=literally the greatest god damn invention ever

Only thing that can top that is a fucking distillery.

>>34051804
Don't the Brits have a similar setup for tea in the Chally 2?

>>34045844
It's an aluminium tin can that's an officer indecisive wet dream. Cramped as shit, and tall asking for someone to shoot it. Shit should have never been made, but we needed something like a BMP so we built it.

>>34051665
Spike LR outranges TOW, Spike NLOS kills the brad before it even knows whats happened

>>34046827
Plays nothing like it, though. More akin to a BMP-3 with 2A28 73mm cannon.

>>34047727
>>34050951
There a reason why the bradley was painted tan, but stryker was left green? especially since stryker makes more sense and came into being because of urban conflicts like Iraq?

>>34051018
>Standard German config for the Boxer is underwhelming with just a 20mm and 7.62.
German Boxer uses .50 cal.

Germany army isnt using autocannons on apc´s which is strange.

>>34052385
Do your research or don't post. It's hull is a titanium/composite material. It has the second best armor of any chassis in US service.

>>34045844
It was pretty cool in Operation Flashpoint.

>>34052412
>Germany army isnt using autocannons on apc´s which is strange.
Because they are apcs and not ifvs

What's better, the Bradley or the Warrior?

File: 1427639491171.jpg (50KB, 540x358px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 540x358px

>>34052734
More cost-effective than either, for its time period.

>>34052436
Wrong. Alluminum/magnesium alloy. It will literally melt before your eyes if hit with WP or a WP atgm

>>34045844
She orgasms hard if you tease her a bit.

>>34052375
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_vessel

More than just the Challenger 2.

>>34052734
The Gavin is the best.

>>34050852
>not playing NORAD mechanized in red dragon

>>34052436
You mean the titanium armor on the roof? Guess you should have done yours.

>>34051382
what armor?

>>34052734

Bong here.

Depends which versions.

They're both well armoured with plenty of modular options, the Warrior is a bit speedier (at least from when I've seen them both moving with my own eyes. The Warrior picked up speed a lot faster but the Bradley's brakes looked very good I have to say), Bradley probably had some more advanced sights on it these days. Both are reliable. Both are proven in battle.

But for the original/current Warrior, the Bradley is absolutely better. Stabilised gun, automatically loaded ammunition and ATGMs alone make it a clear advantage to the Bradley being the better vehicle. If comparing to the Desert Warrior, it's a lot more even, other than that models more outdated sights and not having the modern armour packages the British got.

After the Warrior's LEP upgrade with the new turret, CT40 and RWS+Javelins and the Bradley's own future upgrades to whatever autocannon they choose, they'll be a lot closer together in performance.

>>34045844
Should put portholes in the sides so passengers can shoot out of it.

>>34045844

Despite what autists on the internet say the Bradley is a beast of a vehicle thats killed lots of people. The modern A3 version fully equipped is no joke.

>>34045844
The 25 mikemike is the shit.

>>34053448
This. My unit was attached to 1-18 Inf in 2007 in Baghdad. They killed alot of motherfuckers with those 25s. I was a light unit so it was my first experience around Bradley's, we used to always crack on the mech dudes until we saw how great they were. Short of a well machined EFP or DBIED, the Bradley with reactive armor can withstand alot of punishment. It can manuever thru some pretty tight muhollas in Baghdad, so it isn't as big and clunky as you imagine. I almost shit myself the first time they opened fire too, I didn't know if we were being hit or doing the hitting hah

File: asdf.jpg (153KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1280x960px

>>34053522

Serious? I was in c-co 1-18 at falcon/carter. The bradley did major work there, smoked a lot of dudes. Small world

File: It's only 25mm.jpg (2MB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2272x1704px

>>34053623
Yessur. I was 1-28 we were stationed up near the Greenzone in a COP with your A co. 1sg Hadley and them were next door at a JSS. Our Battalion and Brigade was at Falcon. I've got some pics that we got from your A co. guys of dudes that were smoked by 25mm

>>34046530
>>34046641

What's the name of the movie?

>>34047727
It's funny, I'm just at the age where green feels right on Bradleys and Abrams because my childhood toys of them were still painted in Fulda Gap colors.

>>34054980
the pentagon wars. it was based on a book, which is recommended over the movie

File: Bradley.jpg (1MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1944px

>>34054983
>>34047727

>>34050852
No radiation
(if killed by a DU KE penetrator)

>>34054921
is he gonna be ok?

>>34045844
A N T I Q U E
N
T
I
Q
U
E

File: 1495577601322.jpg (74KB, 855x720px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 855x720px

>>34045844
It had a nice movie.

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

>>34054921

Nice. Good to see you weren't one that went down with the A-co drama. Those were the best days. I'm doing opsec things now and it's a different, boring world.

>>34055888
HOLY SHIT YOU MEAN IT HAS A MOVIE

>>34046530
>>34046641
>>34051313
>>34051640
>>34051670
>>34054980
>>34055001

>>34051543
I've always wondered, why move the whole launch tube assembly instead of the front plate? would need less power to put into firing position

>>34056553
because it takes up less room when it's stowed

>>34056467
yeah, pentagon wars.

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

>>34051018
>Pretty thoughtful of him to bring a towel to clean that mess up with.

Moslems aren't so bad after all.

>>34056676
Whoops wrong post.

>>34054921

>>34045844
It's not a Warrior.
t. britbong

>>34055021
I honestly figured it just meant it had already been stripped of it's radiator.

File: P1010586.jpg (508KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1600x1200px

Hello there, my autistic brother!

>>34045844
More protective against IEDs than a 1114/1151, and that is the only nice thing I have to say about the Bradley.

OIF 06-07

File: not my favorite shop.jpg (39KB, 600x342px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x342px

>>34052769
>WP atgm
>White phosphorus atgm

File: IMG_3833.jpg (68KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x426px

>>34051018
What about Patria? With glorious AMOS Config? Could it kite the Bradley avoiding LoS and shell it to a wreck?

>>34050951
thank god took them long enough

>>34056098
what happened with A-co? commander freak out bout some stupid shit or more blackheart nonsense

>>34047727
>>34050951
>>34056984
Tell me this shit isn't beautiful

File: Capture.jpg (218KB, 900x598px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 900x598px

>>34057062
fuggg

File: Capture.jpg (81KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x480px

>>34057075
best paint

File: Capture.jpg (184KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 900x500px

>>34057086

>>34056967
Must be new to what kind of weapons are good at defeating mbts and ifvs

American TOW, same as on the brad, has a missile packing 2 Directional WP charges for literally melting tanks

Did you scroll past the pic of the bradley where only the steel components and armor pack is not a pool of melted aluminum alloy

>>34057158
TOW is fantastic until you have to reload.
And so begins an awkward reverse back into jack shit.

wow two people i deployed with are on this form. crazy.

>>34053522
>>34053623
>>34054921

fucked that up..
wow two people i deployed with are on this form. crazy

>>34057446
You pathetic faggot. Take off your name. This isn't a forum, it's an imageboard. Thank you for your service.

>>34056098
We were at a different OP. We had Blue platoon A co. 1-18 attached to our 2 light platoons. Yah very tiring times but I definitely miss em.
>>34057558
Who were you with?

>>34056566
that totally makes sense

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

54KB, 725x408px

>>34045844
Replacing the turret with a CROWS was a good idea. Such a good idea the original Bradley was designed with no turret.

>>34045955
Tfw PR doesn't allow you to sit on laps

File: iraq pics 2 048.jpg (133KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 640x480px

>>34057857
C co 1-18

>>34057922
No turret, more crew space. Turret, greater firepower to aid dismounted infantry. It was a compromise. But tell me what you're prefer to have when the enemy rolls up in light armor. A remote .50 cal? Or a 25mm with slap and he?

>>34058187

You forgot it also carries two TOW's.

>>34050909
The brad, being tracked, is better in unforgiving terrain right up until it throws a track. (Modern) brads will have better side armor with all the ERA/applique/caging and the Brad is easier to hull down. Bradley belongs with the tanks.
The boxer is faster, nearly as well or better armed (dependent on variant), has better front armor and is undoubtably more reliable. The boxer is capable of operating independent of (and faster than) the tank force.
The Boxer is the better IFV

File: 35mm remote turrets.jpg (122KB, 1484x1104px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1484x1104px

>>34058187
I am an old armor fag, but remote turrets are nothing new. In the late 80s this was the big debate in the armor community. Now electronics have advanced to the point that there should be no debate.

We have remote turrets up to 35mm. Now the big debate is if 25mm is enough for modern warfare against other armor.

However, in GW1, 25mm was enough to kill most of the Iraqi T55.

>>34051313
As decent of a movie that was I think it utterly fails to recognize the absolute game changer the BMP-1 was and why changes to the projected follow on to the M113 was necessary. It was more a criticism of the procurement process in general, and since the Brad had somewhat of a development hell it naturally fell on it.

>>34052385
>Tall
>what is hull down
It was afterall designed with defensive capability in mind

File: Aselsan_shows_latest_technology_of_anti-tank_remotely_controlled_weapon_station_at_IDEF_2015_640_001.jpg (47KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x427px

>>34058211
And the Russians have remote turrets with 4 Kornets.

There are several remote turrets with Javelin systems available.

The turret on the Bradley is over 3 tons of redundant systems and wasted space. But it is cool to ride up there!

My old boss rolled a Bradley full of troops during the Gulf War and got kicked out of his driver position because of it.

>>34058316
Fair enough. If we had a 35mm remote turret on a Bradley we'd have the best of both worlds.
>>34058211
Didn't forget. It just wasn't pertinent to my point.

>>34057178
Good thing they're intended to function as first-strike weapons with air superiority already established :^)))

>>34052734
The 30mm rarden, despite being a great and very accurate cannon, is shit on by the 25mm bushmaster.
The Rarden was designed to be as small as posibble for a 30mm, and not require a fume evacuator. The Rarden is fed by 3 round clips manually. The Bushmaster is fed by belts, in fact 2 belts in a toggleable system that will feed either left or right - so you can switch on the fly from HE to AP. Russian autocannons 2A42 and 2A72 are fed the same way but the Bushmaster is an extremely accurate cannon compared to the russian guns.

As it currently stands the Bradley outclasses the Warrior in firepower - even if the Warrior has ATGM. When the upgrade to 40mm happens in earnest it will be a different story, but then the follow on to Bradley will likely have the excellent 30mm Bushmaster and a better ATGM

>>34058453
Being tall makes being hull-down harder, dimwit.

>>34058561
hull down ability is largely affected by dun depression and turret design, not how tall the tank is.

File: 1410881142779.jpg (34KB, 543x271px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 543x271px

>>34058778
I think there is a confusion of terms here. It might be on my part.

Good gun depression and turret design would increase how effective being hull-down is. It won't make it easier to find/pile up appropriate cover/concealment.
A short vehicle has an easier time getting the 60-70% (?) or so percent cover/concealment necessary to be hull down.

If I'm misusing terms, excuse me. I should be on the mark for "effective" versus "percent cover/concealment"

>>34057922
One of the best examples of Dunning Kruger I have seen on /k/.

>>34052769
Just ignore the applique armor that has been part of a Bradley since the A2.

File: 1446328818456.jpg (43KB, 640x327px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x327px

>>34056553
It lets the launcher tilt up and down.

>>34049596

Truly the makers of this are actual orks?

File: 1432080158795.jpg (12KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 284x284px

>>34057105
>>34057075
God why did I enlist in infantry... I should have asked my recruiter to be a 19K.

>>34052386
Lithuania's Boxers have Spike-LR, Spike NLOS is a larger missile that requires a dedicated vehicle.

Spike-LR has the same range as TOW 2.

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

470KB, 1446x952px

>>34058434
The more you know about the Bradley's development the lower opinion you have of Pentagon Wars.

>>34058517
>>34058454

Looks like I poked the autism nest.

File: 18121429_1444988692217864_1608586955283068526_o.jpg (448KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 2048x1536px

>>34057075
>>34057086
>>34057105
These are NATO tricolor, not the solid green that American units in Europe are being painted.

>>34059423
>Poked the autism nest
Did you forget where you are?

>>34045844

It's gonna sell really well on ebay motors when these things are retired?

File: 139031070866.jpg (73KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x768px

>joined at absolute wrong time with Obongo large and in charge
>even then, too young to see Brads in action

I just wanted to see those Brads crack their 25mm and get tinnitus.

>>34046928
I was a light dude that got sent to a mech company for my sins.

The Bradley exceeded all my expectations, and was a straight up killing machine in Iraq, and saved a lot of dudes lives, as they were hit by IED's that would have destroyed the HMMWV's
the non-infantry were rolling in, and our dudes walked out with a headache.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-24 at 10.59.04 PM.png (424KB, 825x419px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 825x419px

>>34045844

"You have a Bradley Fighting Vehicle? That's the finest non-lethal military vehicle ever made!

>>34051752
Just don't be at Ft. Hood, period.

The place is a filled with complete shitbags, lead by shitbags.

>>34051382
>>34053382
Reminder that it's objectively the most heavily armored IFV of its era, and remains one of the most heavily armored IFV to this day.

>>34046706
In Gulf War 1 one confirmed kill at close range against T-55 shot through the turret ring on the side.

>>34047889
That must have been one big ied.

>>34060189
Nah it was a T-72. There was a documentary on it back when the history channel was not shit. Can't be fucked to find it though.

File: download (1).jpg (105KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1440x810px

>>34052397

Some Strykers are Tan. They have absolutely zero advantage in urban terrain over a Bradley, They are not "assault" vehicles and lack the defense for that role, instead providing a mobile base of fire for Infantry maneuvers. The whole urban vehicle is a meme and nowhere in the Army's stryker platoon doctrine

>>34058087

Crazy that there's another person from C-Co who went on that deployment browsing /k/ 10 years later.

>>34060162
warrior should crap all over it.

File: 1487197396084.jpg (54KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x333px

>>34059205
one could say so

>>34059280
tl;dr:
>The Bradley is like the A-10, a great design for the sort of war we're no longer planning on fighting.

That's damning with faint praise, isn't it?

>a burnt out Bradley is bad for morale
True, but also psychopathic.

>>34049596
Why even add camo when you're just going to recreate the spongebob sky backdrop?

>>34063730

yea its a small world.

>Say something nice about it.

It would be nice if they moved the fuel tank outside the crew compartment.

>>34064975
Ahh yes, the death hamster.

>>34052386
Brad and everything else need APS, but the Army isn't serious about fielding it in quantity.

>>34052454
That's no reason to under-arm them.

>>34051313
A shitty representation of the Bradly development but a great representation of feature creep.

File: 12901458_1160877583946838_7955343453980913352_o.jpg (307KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 2048x1536px

Picture: Danville, VA AAF Tank Museum.

If memory serves, the M2 Bradley is banned for private ownership by name. So what did the owner do? Scrounged up the parts and pieced together his own unofficial "M2". Made the BATFE and military pissed af. They tried their best to take him down, and he's already been undergoing repeated illegal audits for decades for being one of the largest private arms collectors in the world. Turned out, he did everything legally. He just outsmarted the law.

Well played, sir. Well played.

>>34065086
>The Bradley is like the A-10, a great design for the sort of war we're no longer planning on fighting.

The A-10 was designed for a role that was obsolete when it entered service, so no.

>>34069059
They army is buying an initial 35 APS systems for Bradley's with the FY2018 budget.

File: 1f0f3a617bfc6d78b98b2b135ae9ee8d.jpg (46KB, 576x416px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 576x416px

>>34069154

>>34069069
>put a big gun on your tracked platform
>now it can't carry a full squad anymore

You're merely pretending to be retarded, aren't you?

>>34069069
Think about it this way: you put a big scary gun on a vehicle, and are not the baddies going to want to take it out even more? If that vehicle happens to be a troop transport, that means it transfers from dangerous to being a top priority if something even more dangerous isn't around to shoot at. The idea is that you're making an APC a priority target, therefore putting the troops inside at risk, my arming. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the concept, but it is worth arguing.

>>34069159
Irrelevant, both are obsolete today. Past relevancy does not confer current relevancy.

>>34057086
Reconsidering option 04 contract now tbqhwy.

What are the odds I get to ride a Brad if I go non-airborne 11B or 19D?

File: Bill Mauldin Pilots Obsolete in Missile Age.png (173KB, 313x371px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 313x371px

>>34069310
>protecting your infantry and giving them a heavy support platform is something that becomes obsolete

File: m1126-stryker.jpg (89KB, 600x459px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x459px

THIS IS A STRYKER THREAD NOW

POST STRYKERS

>>34069310
>Irrelevant, both are obsolete today.

The A-10 is, Bradleys are not.

>>34056659
>>34055888
Damn thats what I call mission creep.

File: 440px-Buried_IED_blast_in_2007_in_Iraq.jpg (32KB, 440x262px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 440x262px

>>34069578
>This is the M1126 Stryker ICV
>Say something nice about it

The 1128 looks nice and blows mud huts up good, at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBHnNSURLEA&feature=youtu.be&t=1s

>>34069512

you will probably work with them if you go 19D

alot of us are going heavy right now and 3 ID has just converted all of its brigades to heavy, so you'd be using a brad for sure

op 04 is ok but just remember airborne is p much useless in modern warfare. war is decided by the speed and maneuver of the armor and the value of the airborne units are situational at best

>>34069628
>>34069527
>>34069628
The argument I am responding to plainly states that Bradleys are obsolete in non-linear warfare. Please try to keep up.

>>34045844
Looks suspiciously like an m113 to me.
Would not get into/10

>>34070698
m113s are pieces of shit, I'd rather get into a bradley

>>34070622
Please format your posts better to avoid confusion.

>>34069628
actually the Warthog still has one mission it's better than anything at; providing escort to SASR. Jets are too fast to fly alongside helicopters and LGBs/ASMs take too long to hit the ground. Im not sure if Apaches aren't used for this role because the Air Force doesn't have any, or they never acquired any because it doesn't suit this role.

either way the hog isn't obsolete yet

>>34070710
>SASR

I mean ARS. Air rescue service. You know scooping up downed pilots.

>>34069154
>>34069154
an officer here at my unit knew of a general, that slowly pieced together an entire fucking blackhawk.

The only reason they found him out was because they noticed some rotary blades never made it to where they should of gone to.

He was prepping to build the engine.

Aside from the blades, he built it entirely out of spare/scrape parts. lel

Can I get a quick rundown on why the BMP-1 was so good?

>>34070836
Basically very cheap metal boxes with a big gun bolted on top. Perfect for Soviet doctrine of rushing mass numbers of conscripts into West Germany as quickly as possible.

>>34069733
It almost rolled over just from its own gun's recoil.

>>34070730
what happened to the general?

>>34070908
had to buy a round at the golf course.

>>34070836
First major vehicle to push the idea of an IFV as we understand it.
Something with treads to go where tanks go, and the firepower to be useful in a tank vs. tank fight, but equipped to directly support infantry with something more powerful than a few .50s or equivalent.

Also it was amphibious.

Think of it as a combination of the Amtrack and the LAV-25, but introduced in 1966 as a combined package instead of 1972 and 1983 respectively.

>>34070836
a vehicle that can

carry infantry, give them very good fire support, and have acceptable survivability and mobility did not exist when the BMP-1 was adopted. It's just a great format for a force multiplier.

>>34070836

The situation: massed forces in Central Europe awaiting WW3. It is predicted that the war will be decided more or less in a week or so, with large quantities of tactical nuclear weapons (and possibly nerve agents) used. The Warsaw Pact would advance as quickly as possible taking ground that has already been hit with tactical nukes.

The BMP-1 is; NBC protected, has a respectable gun that can be fired from inside & ATGM, they passengers can fire from inside if needed, frontally resistant to the 0.50 & 20 mm weapons common in NATO, it can cross rivers amphibiously without preparation, it was produced in massive numbers (tens of thousands). All this while most NATO countries were using; non-NBC protected APCs armed with nothing bigger than a HMG, which the crew & passengers had to expose themselves to fight from. For the year it was introduced, and for the war it was expected to fight, it was an excellent weapon.

>>34060488
>urban vehicle is a meme
Wrong.

The Russian BMPT Terminator 1 and 2 are purpose built for urban combat based on some hard learned lessons in Chechnya, and studying the Israeli experience with the Achzarit. Basically, turretless tanks with remote turrets and room for troops. Which is an idea that goes all the way back to the 80s.

>>34073045
>Basically, turretless tanks with remote turrets
wut

>>34070710
Probably may be less of an issue since USAF CSAR are picking up more CV-22s over the MH-60s.

File: BMPT v1.jpg (437KB, 2444x1944px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2444x1944px

>>34073084
Oops. Forgot the pic

>>34073216
Looks cool. Is it any good?

>>34073045
They are memes.

There's a reason why they couldn't convince the Khazaks to buy any, and they sold it as being an escort vehicle, not as urban use.

Literally every country in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that for urban ops you're perfectly fine with MBTs and regular IFVs if you don't use them like retards in Russia did in Grozny.

>>34045844
a lot of time and effort went into making you.
so you where a wanted child (that should have been aborted)

>>34054921
I knew auto canons can fuck you up but not that bad.

When hit it burns with a nice bright flame.

>>34073424
Oh, no argument there.

The biggest problem we have had with urban ops is thinking we can somehow "save the city". No fucking way.

>protect your own troops
>protect the city

Pick one. Urban ops. Lots of eggs will get broken making that omelette.

MBT based IFVs are based on a doctrine that says a small number of forces can go into a city and just absorb RPGs.

>>34073394
Yes but its a lot of sluggish,just a fast design its lacks a lot with view ports its only has 200* angle to see at its back its blind when turret faces in front it has to turn the turret all the way around to look for its back

>>34045844
for what i have heard they are very cost effective.

25mm chain gun is very Noice; perfect for blasting sand niggers

>>34045844
Better than walking

>>34069309
>it transfers from dangerous to being a top priority if something even more dangerous isn't around to shoot at
shit logic. if you have bradleys and tanks and m113s with tanks, both the bradley and the m113 would be the top priority if the tanks are absent...

>>34077286
It's logic pulled straight from that shitty Pentagon Wars movie.