Why was its development so fucked that we ended up with

One capable of BTFOing soviet armor?

We just don't know.

>>34798578

>Arabic Armies

The memes, my dude

File: 1362991702656.png (587KB, 680x497px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 680x497px

>>34798584
>US fights the largest conventional engagements of the last 30 years
>lol doesn't count because it was Arabs

>>34798565
the bradly is fine.
stop believing vatnik memes

>>34798603

You could have given the Americans BMPs and T-72s and tthe Iraqis Abrams and Bradleys and the Gulf Wars still play out exactly the same way.

The Gulf Wars were won by Air Power and C2, not by the tanks or IFVs

>>34798565
So what do you think is wrong with them?

>>34798619
>US has pitched tank battles
>all of the enemy tanks get killed
>none of the US tanks do

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

>>34798565
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
Video related

>>34798565
But it wasn't fucked.

Wait... You don't think Pentagon Wars has any basis in reality, do you?

>>34798681
stop using reason, hes a vatnik.
youre only wasting your breath

>>34798681
So it's not a fact that the Bradley carries the least amount of troops out of the worlds IFVs, has ALUMINUM armor and is one of the biggest targets on the battlefield in terms of size?

>>34798700
By any chance, you wouldn't happen to know what those square plates on Bradley are, do you?

File: 1501094848061.gif (505KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1080x1080px

>>34798700
And yet has been one of the worlds most successful IFVs?

>>34798736

>Let's copy the Soviet style ERA, they know how to create proper military vehicles

Took the Americans long enough to figure it out...

>>34798749

>Sucessful
>Only used by two nations
>Would be slaughtered on a battlefield not dominated by the US Air Force
>Even then, still got BTFO by goat farmers to the point that they had to take ALL Bradleys out of Afghanistan and Iraq

Hahahaha

>>34798767
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vifYelSTlMo

>>34798767
>Sucessful
No, successful
>Only used by two nations
Other than soviet budget apc/ifvs most nations make their own.
>Would be slaughtered on a battlefield not dominated by the US Air Force
What does this even mean?
>Even then, still got BTFO by goat farmers to the point that they had to take ALL Bradleys out of Afghanistan and Iraq
And where exactly did you get this idea from other than your vatnik wet dreams?

File: 52437_054c9258fa.jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>34798804
>And where exactly did you get this idea from other than your vatnik wet dreams?

It was the same time they stopped letting Abrams out the wire in Iraq until they got the belly armor package

File: burger pro.png (101KB, 539x468px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 539x468px

>>34798565
>>34798672
>>34798681
Listen, anons. The Pentagon Wars is a fun movie, but it's still a dramatized, comedic version of an exaggerated memoir with a deliberate agenda. Legitimate points are made, and the R&D/acquisition process of the DoD leaves much to be desired, but you must remember that the incompetency of the Pentagon is played up for laughs.

Parallels are consistently drawn between the M2 Bradley and F35 programs, but in those comparisons are two distinct problems: for one, the F35 is a massively different program, developing a vastly different piece of materiel on a much larger scale. Second, while the Bradley's development was far from seamless, it produced a vehicle that was incredibly effective in its operational role; the problems with it later in Iraq come from shoehorning conventional military equipment and doctrines into an asymmetrical combat environment. This is not a flaw of the Bradley, this is a flaw of the US command structure using Cold War strategies in a guerrilla conflict.

>>34798672
Does problem with turret attracting fire is really relevant?

>>34798565
Because the US has some fucking brain tumor that's existed since the cold war that keeps saying "heavy armor and big gun is all you need"

>>34798984
>Pentagon is played up for laughs.

If you ever work a contract with the DoD, you'll realize that no, it's not played up.

It's a lot better than BTRs/BMPs.

You (obviously) don't understand what the army was looking for; which was a reaction to the lessons learned in the Arab/Israeli wars.

>ATGMs
Enable the IFV to overwatch tanks, freeing up 30% more tanks for maneuver to contact and exploitation.

>autocannon
Penetrates enemy vehicles, but the main reason is suppression of enemy ATGMs at >1km range.

>armor
Enough to stop HMGs, which were a serious threat to the M113, which could at best stop 7.62.

The Bradley was a success. It did everything it was designed to do, and well.

>>34800145

>float

>>34800166
Can't have it all anon. Fording capability turned out to be good enough.

>>34798752
>proper military vehicles

More like proper deathtraps.

>>34798767
Vatnik power in effect

>>34798700
Easily WAY better combat vehicle than the BMP ever was.

>>34800145
Except carry a full squad. Though I hear they're working on stretched Abrams that can. Is that true?

>>34800986
>>34800145
*Stretched Bradleys

>>34799461
No, that movie was made by sprey tier idiots with no idea of what they were talking about.

>>34798565
Watch The Pentagon Wars

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

44KB, 410x640px

Mission creep. The Bradley is a case study in pic related.

>>34801145

Which part wasn't true?

>>34801247
Except there is plenty of room in the Bradley for troops, until the crew stuffs it literally full of ammo.

>>34801571

>Has to choose between troops and ammo

Seems like a pretty shitty IFV, don't you think? An IFV should be able to do both.

>>34802473
the nature of the IFV concept is compromise. Unless you roll with a midget army or have a tiny engine in the vehicle, there's no way to have everything. It's a balancing act

>>34799866
You can fuck off contractor scumbag.

>>34798752
>The idea of counterexplosion (kontrvzryv in Russian) in armour was first proposed by the Scientific Research Institute of Steel (NII Stali) in 1949 in the USSR by academician Bogdan Vjacheslavovich Voitsekhovsky (1922–1999). The first pre-production models were produced during the 1960s. However, insufficient theoretical analysis during one of the tests resulted in all of the prototype elements being blown up.[citation needed] For a number of reasons, including the accident, as well as a belief that Soviet tanks had sufficient armour, the research was ended. No more research was conducted until 1974 when the Ministry of the Defensive Industry announced a contest to find the best tank protection project.

>A West German researcher, Manfred Held carried out similar work with the IDF in 1967–69.[1] Reactive armour created on the basis of the joint research was first installed on Israeli tanks during the 1982 Lebanon war and was judged very effective.[by whom?]
Explosive reactive armour

Sorry, the Jews beat you to the punch.

>>34801247
>gunner was unprotected
Gun shields and CROWs.
>what about enemy apcs
TOWs, autocannons, and ERA/NERA.

Your pic is outdated and not up with times.

File: 1480409668962.jpg (23KB, 418x405px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 418x405px

>>34798565
Why do people not like the Bradley? Seriously asking. Seems fine to me other than only being able to carry like six troops in the back, but hey. It is an IFV not an APC after all. Don't those fuckers also have the ability to mount ATGMs and short range SAM systems?

>>34804161
It's literally because of a mostly fictional hbo movie.

>>34804216
not gonna give me a name of the hbo movie fucko? Or are you gonna keep me in suspense all night?

>>34804259
it's in this fucking thread, it's one of the first replies

>>34804216

>Mostly fictional
>Except all the complaints made against it are true

Troop transport that can't carry a full squad
Recon vehicle that's too big and slow to do proper recon
IFV with buttered armor