Is it true Bradley's fuckin suck?

They're very good at working with M1 Abrams and breaking people's shit due to good weapons and good (for an IFV) armor.

They aren't that good at counter-insurgency due to poor mine resistance and troop capacity.

It was truly excellent in the Gulf War, and it was well suited for the 80s Cold War environment it was created for.

>>34317887

Absolutely not, they performed very well in Operation Desert Storm.

>>34317910
>>34317912
So basically it's only good in conventional warfare against people a couple generations of tech behind you?

>>34317952
I mean, people a couple generations of tech behind the US are the only people stupid enough to get into wars with the US.

It'd probably do fine in any job that doesn't involve repeatedly driving down the same roads for months or years while insurgents keep burying mines on them, which is basically what OEF/OIF were.

You wouldn't use an MRAP to kill a T-54 either.

>>34317986
Fair enough, how does it stack up against other IFVs of our day. Do you think it would have been better to just keep it as a troop transport?

>>34317887
If this is a Blacktail video the automatic answer is no it is not accurate.

>>34317952
Iraq's better equipment was comparable to what you saw in the Warsaw Pact at the time.

>>34317887
we needed something to compete with the bmp
bradley has an advantage on the bmp2
costs have been ridiculous comparitively
the points brought up in the pentagon wars are invalid though

its fine. you can't blame a IFV for getting wrecked by an anti-tank mine or a bunch of 155 daisy chained together. In a conventional fight where it was envisioned it is an excellent part of the U.S. arsenal.

>>34317952
>So basically it's only good in conventional warfare against people a couple generations of tech behind you?

The T-72M was from the same generation as the M1A1s it was fighting, albiet slightly older.

And they lost on a regular basis to the Bradley, an IFV/recon vehicle, never even designed to engage tanks in such a manner.

>>34317887
It's a complete abortion.

It's almost entirely outclassed in all aspects by its venerable older brother, The Gavin.

But the military commissioned it just to keep defence contract money flowing towards their friends in the arms industry.

>>34317887
>Is this accurate?
Yes and no.

As a criticism of the Bradly it is not. As a illustration of feature creep and changing project guidelines then yes.

The customer never knows what they want.

>>34318990
Sparky pls leave

>>34319042
>tfw the antigavin lobby is on 4chin
Feels bad man
Enjoy getting stuck in the mud with your lolykers

File: slow disgust.gif (2MB, 300x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x264px

>>34318990
>gavin

>>34317887
2 good friends of mine
one is a Navy medic, the other was a Marine in Iraq
They say Bradleys kicked ass and saved a lot of lives.

And didn't fucking Bradleys take on tanks in the first gulf war?

>>34317887
the F35 of tanks

>>34320628
When you compare the Bradley to a fucking tank of course it look shitty. The thing is it's not a tank and it's pretty good at being an IFV.

>>34317952
No. >>34317910
Doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Bradleys workes great in Baghdad when I was there, they could even manuever in really tight muhollas, and the 25mm can penetrate most forms of cover used by insurgents. Sure certain EFPs and Deep buried IEDs can get to it, but it's still a reallllly durable vehicle with the reactive armor. Bradleys bagged and tagged a fuckton of bad guys in Iraq, I felt stupid as fuck for ever buying into the "Light infantry is best infantry" bullshit, because the mech dudes had a much greater advantage over us

While the Bradley did have a fucked up beginning, it has found a place in modern Combined Arms Battalions (CABs). They work very well- especially in scout roles for Armor units. However, here are my complaints:
1- In a hypothetical conventional war, Bradleys are outgunned by many of our rival's APCs like the new Russian BMP(2?s). They should update the main weapon system to the 30mm like what they are putting on some Strykers now.
2- People get very fucking cocky when talking about Bradley vs. Tank scenarios. While this is situation dependent, I would never seek out an offensive engagement with any enemy Tank- although the Bradley could kill t70s and t80s pretty easily with a solid TC+gunner combo, a T90 would fuck a Bradely's world
up even with TOWs up in defilade

>>34317912
>>34317910
Yeah but a lot of that is because the Iraqi's are fucking retarded

>>34317887
If you think of it as a tank then yes.
If you think of it as a IFV/CFV (Bradley has Calvary variant) then Hell to the Fuck No.

>>34317887
no. It was a movie made to entertain by a guy who's book was dubious at best.

The Bradley showed itself very well in all wars. It was not made to be blown up from point blank range by an EFP/ IED. Most vehicles are not.

It was made to be a thug, back up infantry and punish foes that were more lightly armed than itself, and it excelled at that task. It also helped carry infantry, and at times cargo to extend logistics, but that is often not glamorized as much.

Could it be a better vehicle? Yeah sure in hindsight everything can be improved, but it sure as fuck was there, and good enough when we needed it.

>>34317952
>against people a couple generations of tech behind you?

So everybody?

>>34317887
extremely well armored for an IFV, to the point of crippling the mobility of it severely. it was previously a very quick, very well armored, amphibious, turretless m113 replacement. it is now zero of those things while having a taller silohuete than an abrams

25mm APFSDST DU ruins anything short of 1st world nations' entire tank force

con : armor is magnesium aluminum alloy, vehicle will literally melt into a puddle of alloys with the steel parts sticking out of it if hit by any infinite number of incendiary/WP ATGMS or artillery

it's a good vehicle, but should probably retained a little more of it's original design even as just a variant

File: 1405853465225.jpg (16KB, 260x242px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 260x242px

>>34321361
>Extremely well armored
>30mm front protection like literally every other modern IFV sans slavshit

>>34318990
>gain
Really? Bro, were you even Airborne?

>>34321361
They put reactive armor on them for deployments, which helps a little

>>34321448
The Brad is not really a modern IFV. It's over 30 years old at this point. When it came out it was THE SINGLE most heavily armored IFV in the world, and held that distinction for a long time.

>>34320278
Blew the fucking turrets off Iraqi T-55's using just the 25mm, at night and on the move.

t. oldfag 19D.

>>34321361
Armor is not aluminum, it's steel. Hull base is aluminum but (sans a serious fucking fire all over the place) it won't ignite due to being sandwiched between steel plates.

>>34317887
the movie "Pentagon Wars" says Bradley is shit, the movie is on youtube, and since anything on the Internet must be true...

>>34317887
It's literally the most battle-tested western IFV out there and it's performed exceptionally well in that role.

>>34320278
>>34321627
It popped a handful of T-72s with TOWs too.

Question.

Pretend we weren't fighting Iraqi insurgents with a 21st century mindset, but fanatical Japanese with a 1940s mindset.

We want to occupy the area, for good, so we can't just nuke it.

How would the old allies have dealt with an insurgent fanatical populace that plants explosives in the ground and hides in the hills?

>>34321747
In particular what kind of vehicles would we develop for the task.

>>34321747
>>34321757
That completely off topic bump.

>>34317887

Great piece of kit. A lot of dudes are still alive today because they were in those things instead of those shitty armored hmmwv's, and a lot of sandniggers are dead because they thought they could fuck with a Brad the same way they could the the hmmwv's.

The mech infantry guys are the weak link, not the brads.

>>34321747
>>34321757
Tactics are more important, but I'll humor you.
1.Send every bleeding heart liberal into enemy mines/machine gun fire.
2. Evac all noncombatants to concentration camps (U.S. style, not Soviet/Nazi.)
3.Send in Marines.
4.Gib Marines crayons for every kill.
Problem solved.

>>34321448
>THE BRADLEY HAS ALUMINUM ARMOR
>actually it is very well protected
>WELL SO ARE OTHER MODERN WESTERN IFV'S!!!

File: BN-KA028_HUMVEE_G_20150825171313.jpg (39KB, 553x369px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 553x369px

>>34321819
Humvee "problem" has been solved. Pic related.

(I say problem because it's not really a problem with the humvee, it's fantastic at its job. It's a problem with people's implementation of it.)

>>34321747
Just look at when the US invaded the Philippines. Historically everybody is shit at dealing with insurgencies and eventually people start doing really shitty things.

>>34321747
>Flame throwers?
>fire bombing
>Defoliant maybe?
>Winning hearts and minds?

Fuck all that shit. Next time just skip to nukes. They build character! The Japanese are living proof!

>>34321871
>when the US invaded the Philippines
>invaded

>>34321947
>people who aren't flips
>projecting military force into the Philippines
>opposed by locals
>events surrounding it called a war

Dress it up how you will, but it sounds like an invasion to me.

>>34321843

Right, but I'd still rather have a Brad, depending on the environment, as the optics and weapons package are better than anything other than a tank.

>>34321812
This is 4chan.

>>34322126
Strykers optics are just as good, but I digress.

What you just stayed, it's kind of a no brainer, everyone wants to roll around in a tank if you could, but that's simply not feasible.

The guy on foot wants a truck, the guy in the truck wants an apc, the apc wants to be an IFV, the IFV wants to be in a tank.

File: 1497242693948.gif (59KB, 182x249px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 182x249px

>>34321843
>Humvee
>Fantastic

>>34322293
They are excellent light recon and fantastic multi use non frontline "truck".

>>34317887
They're great fighting vehicles... not fun to be crammed in with 5-6 other dudes sweating like pigs and pissing in Gatorade bottles for days

>>34321747

colonial powers would likely have dealt with iraq using dark age brutality

in fact The Harrowing of The North in 1070 and Boer War in 1899 had the same playbook

>crush any enemy fighters with an iron fist
>kill or imprison the families of enemy fighters
>burn all the crops
>loot/burn every home and raze every village in areas that resist
>rinse and repeat

the problem is that these methods are universally condemned because they literally inhuman and basically genocide even in 1070 the clergy and chroniclers(even england's #1 Norman-boo Orderic Vitalis) pretty universally thought it was a grave unforgivable sin that would stain King William's soul

>>34322079
It sounds like you are selectively remembering what happened to support your worldview.

>>34322307
>fuckstick leaves opened mre in back hatch
>raccoons smell
>tear apart every gasket in that bitch to get inside
>it then rains

>>34321747
As much as it is a meme: "Total war"
Napalm, cluster munitions, carpet bombing any village that is a suspected enemy stronghold.
Basically look at Vietnam but turn the killing up to 11 due to not giving a shit about civilian casualties.

File: M113IStheGavin.jpg (117KB, 672x885px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 672x885px

>>34319508

>>34321361
>>34321448

Puma is better.

File: CciJeTkW8AA5BLX[1].jpg (48KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x401px

best IFV reporting in

File: IMG_1482.jpg (135KB, 648x848px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 648x848px

>>34320664
We still have light infantry? What units are light infantry?

>>34323864
Pretty much any infantry unit that doesn't get equipped with brads are light.

>>34323790
When it gets ATGM's.

>>34323981
it's funny how much the definitions differ between militaries, in Finland the traditional infantry is considered "heavy" infantry as opposed to jäger troops of various kind, including mechanized infantry or "armour jägers" as they are called.

>>34318990

>calling it the gavin

ISHYGDDT

File: 1458434153544.gif (3MB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 291x300px

>>34324145
finland ruined the jäger term

>>34323981

When I was a 19D we classified Scouts in Humvee and on foot as light, Stryker based scouts as medium, and Bradley based scouts as heavy.

I'm not sure if that was official nomenclature but is is the nomenclature used in my Regiment

>>34323864
Every single IBCT, you moron.

>>34318008
it was good for its time and roughly on equal terms with the BMP-2.
however more modern IFVs like the BMP-3, Kurganets, Dardo and CV-90 are vastly superior in nearly every way and more affordable as well.

>>34317887
It's outdated but still more than acceptable. With a heavy modernization program you could keep viable for at least another decade. But since it will take a good decade to replace the thing it would be wiser to start on a replacement than to update the Brad.

>>34324436
>I'm not sure if that was official nomenclature

That shit changes every 5 years or so when the new staff officers at DA and branch decide they need to re-write and re-name some shit to show that they've actually been doing something.

>>34324243
the Finnish logic is probably based on the wieldiness of the units: regular infantry is intended to operate locally; let's say the country is split into 20 parts & regular infantry untis only operate in the one part they have been assigned to & as such they are rather unwieldy in comparison to jäger units which operate on a wider area; three or four areas of operation in total, each area has its own jäger troops + certain more specialised jäger units may be deployed anywhere in the country depending on where they are needed.

File: 1458026182640.jpg (23KB, 318x307px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 318x307px

>>34317887
First thing you should ask yourself is this.
>''If I were to be with a squad, and the enemy had *THING* with them. How fucked would we be?''
If the answer is riddled with large exit holes, the answer is ''Fairly''

>>34324610
Of the vehicles you listed only the Kurganets and CV90 Mk3 are comperable to a modern Bradley.

>>34322531
We "bought it from the Spanish" after our war with them, we didn't have to stay, but we wanted a colony.

>>34324777
case in point:

"shit is going down in this town, let's send Jäger battalion 2 in to reinforce the local forces"

"not going to be enough, better throw in the jägers from the mechanized battle group as well"

"still not enough I'm afraid"

"FFS fine I'll ask the general staff to let us borrow the special jäger battalion as well..."

>>34323775
If you say something stupid long enough, it starts catching on.

>>34324848
>>''If I were to be with a squad, and the enemy had *THING* with them. How fucked would we be?''
>If the answer is riddled with large exit holes, the answer is ''Fairly''

I love subtle k humor.

>>34324662
If you upgraded the weapon to not suck ass and replaced the missile launcher with something designed in the last 50 years it would probably be fine

>>34326041
So the 25mm Bushmaster, M240 coaxial and TOW launcher are good to go.

>>34321448
I thought it had all around 30mm protection.

>>34326213
25mm is peashooter
Needs larger, also a mortar
coaxial weapons are a meme.
And the TOW launcher is hideously dated

>>34326041
TOWs are still extreamly usefull. The latest version make the TOWs in Syria look fire fire crackers.

>>34326247
>I have no clue what the fuck I'm talking about, the post

>>34317887
Killed more tanks than the M1

>>34323864
mine ;_:

File: 20140611_141841.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Rode in them for years. Fuck those vehicles the designers didn't ever put on fill kit and ride in them for a few weeks. It tries to do everything and ends up doing all kinda alright instead. The one good thing I'll say is versus some ragtag militia force it'll fuck them up but outside of that it can go anally fist itself.

>>34321638
the main hull of the vehicle is magnesium aluminum alloy. it would weigh upwards of 50 tons if it were steel, instead of the ~37 it weighs without additional armor kits.

30mm will likely still kill it but we have the advantage of massive stockpiles of APFSDS-T DU rounds that are very proven at killing the shit out of anything short of a modernized t80, most nations will not be engaging tanks with their IFVs' main gun

>>34326773
>instead of the ~37 it weighs without additional armor kits

I assume you meant with the additional armor..

>>34326773
>this fucking thing weighs the same as a sherman
how

>>34326247
>faggit
>0 combat experience

>>34326963
It is better armored, armed and larger than a Sherman.

>>34326426
What's with the different TOW launcher on that one?

>>34327126
That is a quad pack of Stinger missiles, its been over a decade since the Bradley's armed with them were converted back to TOW's.