Bradley Development: What Pentagon Wars got right.
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 09. 2021
- Is "The Pentagon Wars" a film with no historically redeeming qualities? Fortunately, no!
The US Army's Armor and Cavalry Collection (and the Infantry Museum) have some of the progenitors of Bradley, and we can compare the film's development sequence with what the Army was really building.
Note. I transposed the dates on M701 and M734. The 701 was built 1965, testing complete 1966. XM734 was started 1965, delivered 1966.
Thanks to the ACC and the Patreons for making the trip possible.
ACC Facebook Page: / armorandcavalrycollection
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Improved-Computer-And-Scout Car Fund (i.e. financial donations):
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal: paypal.me/thechieftainshat
As former Bradley users always seem to like to point out, they forgot about air conditioning....
"Who needs AIR CONDITIONING in a SCOUT vehicle?! They'll be getting in an out so much that the AC would break down!"
*decades of desert combat experience later*
"Everything needs AC. EV-ER-Y-THING."
"You can't have aircon and swimming ability. Pick one." "OK, we'll pick swimming"..... aaaaaand off to the desert they go :-)
@@dougerrohmer They could have a snorkeling air duct system XD. But i'm not sure how they can fit that on a Bradley at this point lol. But it's fine, just make it a modular component that can be attached on demand. The military loves modularity nowadays.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 You're thinking engineering fix. But the choice was a moral choice - no man should have access to swimmingness AND airconditioning. It's too decandent.
Just put an RV AC-Box on the Roof.
All the time he's in front of the Bradley, it looks like the Abrams to his left is holding him hostage, forcing him to talk at gunpoint (cannonpoint?)
Big shell point
The jilted girlfriend...
"my little brother here just wants you to clear up a few... misunderstandings."
I always thought the Bradley was a joke the Armor Branch played on the Infantry. We're going to create a short, sleek, fast tank. Then we're going to convince the infantry to go into battle with us while using something slower than an M1, taller than an M1, and looks more like a tank than an M1.
@@JasonFightsCrime that’s uh, pretty dumb, Bradley was made as a response to BMP 1, it’s not supposed to be a tank and isn’t a tank
Pentagon Wars is to military procurement what Office Space is to working in an office. It's farcical and over the top, but everyone that has any experience with the subject matter sees a lot of truth in it.
Problem is , that e.g. case for US ( and German ... ) torpedoes in WW II were not over the top in the slightes, as well as problems with PAL on Polaris warheads
Absolutely. The disconnect between the brass who wants things to happen, and the engineers who have to make it happen, while dealing with logic and reality. Mission creep is a very real thing, even outside of military world.
If you’ve ever worked at a defence contractor (don’t, working with classified material is utter wank) both Office Space and Pentagon Wars combine to create a special little hell.
I think the issue with the movie is that its satire and the best satire is always based on facts (think Yes Minister) but it will involve a certain level of artistic license. This is what I think the Pentagon wars does well, but some people don't seem to understand its not a documentary and you can't expect a satire to be 100% factually accurate.
This. Anyone who starts their video with “everything wrong with the Pentagon Wars” is just an idiot.
As equally confusing as the Bradley's development is that of its crews' defensive weapon, the M231 Firing Port Weapon. When it was first envisioned by Rock Island Arsenal in 1972, it was basically an M16A1 receiver with a short barrel, a handguard which locked into the firing port of the Bradley's prototype, and featured a wire stock inspired by the M3 Grease Gun that was still in use as the crew's weapon.
But the Army feared that the crews would want to take the weapon out of the vehicle, and they couldn't have that for some reason, so they removed the iron sights, upped the rate of fire to ridiculously uncontrollable amounts, and made it full-auto only. Then they removed the stock too, making the weapon all but useless. It now fires 5.56 at over 1200 rounds per minute and because it has no iron sights the only ammunition it is allowed to fire is tracer ammo.
It all just seems so ridiculous to me.
Especially considering that the Soviets just designed the firing ports to be used with the squad's rifles.
If you fix a problem in the meeting that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if the problem is fixed, cuz you fixed it, and it's on the engineers to make it work.
And engineers are creative... You tell them to make it non removable, they say that isn't gunna work. The tell you the can make it so no one WANTS to remove it... Sure, that works.
It just happens no one wants to remove it because it sucks. That's not the engineers job though, that's what the meeting was for.
It makes sense spray down whatever’s on the other side of the ramp so when you drop it maybe you killed whatever was shooting at you but we can’t use the port guns anymore because indiscriminately blasting at whatever was on the other side of the firing ports tends to make us look bad when a civilian gets hit by it
We used the port firing weapons quite often.
They were great to have up in the turret for the commander. We shot those things all the time. Load it up with 1:4 tracers and burn it.
We screwed them into the ramp when we were on heavy fighting in Sadr City and Fallujah. You aim them through the vision ports above the ramp.
Shoot, we even had a SAW take a round in the gas tube in the middle of heavy fighting in '08. Gave the gunner two bandoliers of mags and the port firing weapon.
@@theimmortal4718 I heard that people would use them for room clearing. Breach the door, dump 30 rounds in a second and a half, reload and move on to the next room.
Her Name was The Chuck Wagon and she was my M2A2 W/ODS She took me from Kuwait to Baghdad in 29 days and did things the designers probably never dreamed possible. I miss her. she is sitting somewhere at arifijan rotting in the desert.
Chieftain literally getting into the weeds.
Not smoking, though. Not on camera, at least.
@@kitten-inside He is active military, he is definitely not smoking the devil's lettuce.
I have never seen a Bradley's in person but had always heard it was a tall vehicle. Seeing it next to an Abrams and towering so much over the chieftain really put it's height into context for me
My understanding is they originally wanted it to fit in a C-130 and that's why it's so narrow. As they added on they dropped that requirement but never bothered to widen it so it just got taller and taller.
@@MrMattumbo if we ever approve it, the M2H is 18 inches taller then the previous ones as well
There is a school of thought that you need the height. When the troops dismount, the gunner must be able to shoot at the enemy over the troops. If it were much lower, shooting the troops would be possible.
I still can remember the CG of the Armor school back in the 80's, railing on about the "Bradleybago", the Infantry branch had foisted off on the Cav.
@@jeffreypierson2064 tell that to the fucking BMP-3 which, mind you is 50 cm shorter AND can swim
I'm getting bad flashbacks to every project involving clients, management, and business analysts I've ever had the misfortune to work on. IT isn't much different, except you don't get cool miniatures for everyone to play with while they heap on the contradictory requests.
"The interface must be clean, but also have good information density. Operation should be simple, but the logic complex, and user-customizable."
And no one ever, EVER wants to allocate the time or budget needed.
Finance, healthcare, small businesses... some things never change.
@hognoxious My favourite was "Can you build us a report that tells us what isn't in the database?".
I was on a project once where the requirement was put forth for "A simple interface to display data from all the fields." There were over 100 fields, from multiple sources.
@@jarink1 Yeah, I was once very close to asking "And would you like a perpetual motion device and a frictionless bearing to go with that?", but my line manager was keeping a very close eye on me at the time and shut me down. No complaints about her from me, she wasn't technical, but she was very good at fending off senior management types when the SHTF and we were trying to sort it. I was sad to see her retire.
Software Engineers and Engineers can also be total pains in not being willing to admit that they caused the problem. I started with time warner and we had the simple filters for the premium channels and then we get the access box and its teething problems and then roadrunner and then digital and voip. You cannot imagine how pissed people got when a new tech rolls out and you have to tell them sorry you can no longer have such and such service because this system doesn't work on the wiring your residence has that was just fine for the service you have had for years, or i'm sorry you can no longer get our service because your residence is now too far from the tap on the telephone pole even though you were fine with the old tech. So I decide to switch to AT&T because they pay better to install U-Verse and I figure hey it is AT&T they have been there and done that. My first day I ask my supervisor where is the extension ladder for my truck and he tells me I won't need one but each crew of 8 techs has one assigned just in case, well now i am getting flashbacks to all the other new tech I dealt with. We had an issue with the software and IT was saying it was a hardware issue so a manager goes down to wally world buys a tv takes it to the cross box and hooks it up and proves to IT it is on there end. IT comes up with a normal update and manages to crash all U-Verse services for 3 days and so on ad nauseum.
Need it in a week and the budget is 5 quid and a freddo
When I got out of the Air Force at the end of 92' my friend Allen had a game called Twilight 2000.His greatest dream was to serve in the Army but he had ALL the medical conditions and weighed about 110 lbs. soaking wet. My friends and I played that game with him and I always drove a Bradley with Allen as the commander. My man passed a few years later.Still,good times.Miss ya,Allen.
Good gosh I remember that game.
Twilight 2000 is such an amazing game and it sucks that the newer versions have no popularity.
If you watch the Pentagon Wars, you come away believing the M2/M3 should be a terrible vehicle good at no actual role. But in fact, it has proven to be a very solid vehicle and weapon platform. Not perfect, but no system will be. The critical part of the success--particularly of the M2A1--was the several years of use in the field army in Germany where tactics, drill, and maintenance could be improved in iterations. Had the M2 been developed in a WW2 situation, it may have failed on fielding, but giving us a chance to roll it around German, NTC, and Fort Hood for 10 years meant that a lot of lessons in actual use could be learned, cataloged, and passed to the builders for improvements. That it remains a viable infantry/Cavalry system in 2021 is nothing short of a miracle and points to just how good it really is.
As a cav scout I fucking love the bradley
Erm, no. It's not a 'miracle'. It means pentagon didn't get enough bribes to replace it. B52 is archaic, obsolete junk, yet still in use. Abrams basically burns money as fuel, and is garbage compared to Leopard if we compare running costs, ditto. M16 family is still in use despite being archaic design with colossal design flaw (see the angled side tube? It's useless and only makes the gun less reliable, more expensive and awkward to use) added by the army out of spite. The fact something is in use means nothing...
@@KuK137 you are wrong in MANY, MANY ways.
There were only 2 US bombers that have capabilities similar or exceeding B52: B1 and B2. lol cost, lol logistics.
"Abrams burning (much more) money as it runs " is a fuddlore debunked many times over
M16's gas system (sorry I assume you meant that by "side tube" because there aint nothing on its side really, and the only tube that has angle is the gas tube; and M16 series famously can't fold ) was NOT how it got a bad reputation in the vietnam war/early 2000s, It was fucked by the change in ammo(ball powder switaroo ) in vietnam and early days of carbine length gas system on the M4. M16s are among the cheapest western combat rifles available and also the most adopted, all western special forces uses a variant and continues to do so.
@@CKshouta KuK is referring to the forward assist on the M16 which would be cheaper still if they got rid of it.
@@CKshouta not to mention that the M16 was also fucked over because cleaning kits weren’t issued with it early on
I served with the YPR-765 PRI AIFV in the Netherlands Army. Neat little thing with armour that could withstand 7.62mm AP and that's all she wrote, but with a 25mm Oerlikon and (later) a pretty good thermal sight. Basically the M-113/XM-765 with port holes (we never used in training or otherwise). Funny how our army ended up with the leftover idea of the US Bradley development.
Not just you, the AIFV also went to Korea, Turkey and Phillippines!
Pretty neat right. Colleagues of mine still use the YPR-765 PRI with .50 as part of their Air Base Security arsenal in the Koninklijke Luchtmacht
@@teslashark Not surprising since my country's APCs already consisted mostly of m113 or variants of it.
Lucky you. We still used the YP by DAF. Main armament was a .50 with an optional IR projector.
The YPR was just coming into service, when mine was up.
@@teslashark and Chile
My father was a Naval procurement officer and according to him, although not a factual retelling of any one program, The Pentagon Wars is the most accurate depiction of the general sense of frustration and jadedness among procurement officers. Watching that movie with him is a real experience.
For some reason, generals with their doctorate and master degrees don't understand basic physics. For instance, light weight vehicle and combat don't go together. The Stryker was doomed from the start. Helicopters can't be stealthy like aircraft because of their rotor blades so they have to have some object between them and the enemy. That doomed the Comanche and will doom the future helicopter program.
@@orlock20 At least with the Comanche, the program survived as long as it did because heli reconnaissance was still important before the development of the UAVs. How it started from replacing vietnam era light helis to a dogfighting stealth heli rivalling the Ka-52 involves a lot of politics and money in the form of lobbying by companies who coincidentally do not make UAVs.
@@orlock20 A combat helicopter survives on mobility and its ability to fly "on the deck". However, if the enemy has any CAP capability, any rotary birds are so many clay pigeons for them.
@@selfdo J-Catch said otherwise. Of course they have to be armed with air to air missiles.
Consider the most recent discussion on why generation 5 aircraft will no longer need machine guns because our missiles are so much better
Linking to a farce, not linking to a lie.
Sounds like the US Army that I know and love.
Bruh the whole government is build on lies over lies
@@Future183 Stand back please, sir. I'm afraid all that edginess you're throwing around might cut me.
FFS, do people _ever_ tire of stale memes and boilerplate small talk?
I don't have nothing against the US military, nothing against the country having their right to build alliances around the globe and share their own values and beliefs and fight for what they think is right. But I can't agree with both the Afghan and Iraqi wars.
@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing bruuuhhh
@@TheStugbit The US had every right to engage in the Afghanistan War, due to 9/11 morally speaking. The Iraq War not so, but geopolitically could be useful.
2:50 is that a early/mid Panzer III in the background!? Looks like the 50L42.
nice catch, I didn't notice that until you pointed it out.
The turret's still got the ports ahead of the two-part hatches, so it's pre Ausf L. Does look like a 50mm rather than the 37mm. From the design of the rear sprocket wheel and the position of the last return roller, it looks like a E, F or G. Harder to tell without the road wheels for reference. If it had a Rommelkiste, it's lost it.
I think it's the Ausf F that was captured by the British in '42 and sent to the US Army Ordnance Department for their evaluation. This would make it the tank that gave the US torsion spring suspension.
Why am I not surprised you are the first to notice that? :D
Guten abend, mein herr! How are you, Bernard?
CELEBRITY IN DA HOUSE!
nerd
Nice action. Pentagon Wars is much closer to the procurement of UK's Ajax.
what exactly happened with the ajax (other than a bureaucratic clusterfuck caused by civilian intervention in military matters)?
It is not meant to be taken literally. It's more of a general blessing upon all government programs.
@@nathannakaji970 Not sure the strapping on extra tons of armour (which seems to be a root cause of some issues) was a civilian intervention.
As far as i know the vehicle can only travel at 30KMH due to vibration issues.
@@ogilkes1 Was going to have to happen after all the studies on Warrior concluded it’s basically unsurvivable for the modern battlefield
Love Kelsey Grammer in that film, such a turn from The Frasier character, and overall while exaggerated, the subject matter was quite fascinating
Grammer is great at playing pompous characters, isn't he ?
It's actually a documentary of the U.S military brass
Sometimes you wonder if all of Kelsey's roles, whether it was MG Partridge from the PW film, Robert Underdunk Terwilliger "Sideshow Bob" of the Simpsons, Fraiser, etc. are simply Kelsey portraying HIMSELF. FWIW, I liked a little cameo he did in Star Trek: Next Generation as Captain Bateman of the Soyuz-class vessel Bozeman, all serious.
Money plane
I was a combat medic in 86-87 at Ft Benning and covered the demonstrations. Saw one sink, and one unlucky driver grabbing the barrel while dismounting after a live fire. 3rd degree burns instantly.
Col Mcgregor said in an interview I watched that the Bradley is an obsolete design. I have read also that the Brad is described as a camel that was originally supposed to be a horse. A committee discusses it and makes changes. Thus a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
I just want a sign on it in 50 different languages saying, "I'm a troop carrier, and not a tank. Please, don't shoot at me."
Speed and maneuverability is how IFVs survive, not tanking hits.
@@theregalproletariatthe Bradley is slow tho compared to a BMP
@@AgentK-im8ke By 5mph. I think the Bradley's superior ergonomics nullify any such disadvantage.
What difference would a sign make? if an APC is not operating with friendly tanks, it will be the target of any anti-armor weapons. If an IFV is operating with friendly tanks it is clearly not a tank.
As a former Bradley crewman, it's so confusing why you wanted to make something to do all that and then wonder why it's taller than the first proposal. But I loved my time in 1/5 Infantry in 1st Cav back in 2000-2003
I believe we are comparing the Bradley to modern technology. Helicopter and drone technology were still subpar when this vehicle were designed. You would never want a scout vehicle on the ground in modern technology against a near peer. However, in the 1970s and early 1980s those things would still be needed.
@@orlock20 I was in a Mechinized Infantry unit, so we weren't even expected to scout in the thing deliberately in 2000-2003
I've heard that criticism about the tall profile of American tanks and the Bradley, which go back all the way to the M4 Sherman itself, Funny thing, though. The Sherman and the later M47, M48, and M60 "Patton" series all have excellent numbers for gun depression, which helps them fire from a "defilade" position much better than their Soviet counterparts. Also, the tank commander tends not only to have a better view, to search for targets or to identify threats, like stalking infantry, but he's also has a better cupola to observe the enemy from with protection, and with the M60, a small MG turret of its own ON TOP of the turret, giving him the ability to fire upon targets independently of whatever the gunner is engaging with the M68 105mm gun.
Design of a tank or IFV involves trade-offs and compromises; their worth is matter of assessing how well the vehicle fulfills the stated requirements.
@@selfdo Yep, absolute low profile might help in some terrains, but hurt in other.
I recall that Sherman's in Italy had advantages against some enemy tanks due to it's better mobility and gun depression, but I can't recall the source at the moment.
The Soviets were obsessed with keeping their armor low profile, but then the projected use was attacking across open terrain, based at least partly on the experiences of WW2.
The west was looking at defense, followed by counterattack from prepared positions.
Don't believe the book the movie was based off of.
I'll be honest, I'd love to see a companion video to this where you also go over everything wrong with the Pentagon wars. I feel like you'd at least have more of an applicable POV compared to any other random person on CZcams
agreed, one of the most recent videos ive seen on it besides Nick's here clearly didnt do the research on the bradley's development history, since they lambast the Bradley Development scene along with the rest of the movie, book, and reformers. Sure, the Reformers are talking out their ass but the person who wrote that scene did their research to the best of their abilities and "basically" got the clusterfuck of development correct.
Spookston has a nice video on what's wrong with the pentagon wars.
@@Rhen5656 Erm, no. He produced appeasing propaganda piece that basically declared the movie 100% wrong and the clown generals 100% right. I was really disappointed by it, the above video basically demolishes whatever point S tried to make...
@@KuK137 But the reformers were mostly wrong. Other than a tiny bit about about fuel stowage and whatnot. Also both the movie and I think even Spookston ignored the elephant in the room of BMP Plagarism.
Without exaggeration virtually nothing is actually accurate in that movie. Even the parts that are accurate are misrepresented or otherwise misleading.
No more nightmares this time, next to the Quad City Arsenal, this seems positively well managed and streamlined.
Still, things to be learned and mistakes made.
Isn't that life in general?
It's life in Colonel. General is still to come.
Rewatched the development clip yesterday and stumbled on to this channel as a recommended view. Instantly recognized the voice and accent.
Happy to have served with this man in Afghanistan, 2010 - 2011!
Oh, heya!
I've never understood why the Bradley got so much hate in the first place. Pretty much the only problem people have with it that I can understand is how tall and therefore visible it is. It's fast, armored enough to withstand heavy calibers, able to deal with infantry and tanks, and can get troops where they need to be AND stay to cover the troops. No-one shits on the BMP for what it does even though it does the exact same thing as the Bradley.
And it's not like the Bradley was the only IFV to be developed with similar features; the Marder series, Warrior, Type 89, strv 9040, and of course you have all the BMP & BMD variants that all share the same features: an autocannon ranging from 20mm - 40mm, an ATGM launcher, a coax machine gun, armored enough to resist heavy caliber autocannons, fast and agile, and room for up to 8 dismounts varying between the model.
Someone please tell me what I'm missing here about why people shit all over the Bradley yet praise every other IFV out there, especially the BMP.
The hate is almost entirely because of Pentagon Wars, in the same way that a lot of M4 Sherman’s bad reputation comes from the book Death Traps.
Basically, a lying USAF colonel had an axe to grind, after the Pentagon rightfully nixed his laughable "Blitzfighter" (quarter sized A-10, armed only with 30mm cannons, and lacking any sort of advanced avionics), and with the help of the frothy mouthed reformer community started a smear campaign against the Bradley.
@@ShadowFalcon don’t forget that he called stuff like radar “high priced junk” and that he thought it would give you away, despite all evidence to the contrary.
@@nukclear2741
Indeed.
See my post
In about 1980 FMC put on a big public display in Aiken SC, at one of their plants. They had huge aluminum raw castings, major portions of the Bradley unassembled, the weapon systems all on display. They also had a few finished Bradleys on display that people could go inside and look at. As an 11 year old kid, I was in heaven! I was playing inside of one of them and got an M16A1 loose from a weapons rack. I'm climbing up out of the turret with the M16, all looking 'Cool' and one of the soldiers took the rifle away from me. He took the rifle and went in the back of the vehicle to re-secure it.
That was a fun day for a kid!
Great video and memories. Take Care and be safe, John
Please more from that collection! It would be awesome to see a video on the 105mm M1
Which one
✊✊🔥🔥
I worked at Hughes Aircraft when they were rolling out the Bradley.
I was shocked to find out that they were not having use do vibration testing of the TOW system we were manufacturing when EVERYTHING we made was vibe tested during environmental testing.
Unsurprisingly, TOW systems failed in the field because things shook loose, then we started vibe testing.
So you did some testing and found problems. I’m a bit confused, isn’t that what testing is for?
@@willconn3620 They found problems AFTER testing and approval. Because they did not ask for normal vibration tests that were used for every other system we built.
@@willconn3620 you test first they did it ass backwards in a way that causes massive cost and design issues
You probably don't need to hear this but I want to call it out when I see it: I love the tempo of your speech. So many videos are rushed and overly excited and you're just very relaxed, taking your time to talk about this.
Well, I figure the film for the camera is free…. no rush
When you see how well the Bradley did against main battle tanks in the battle of 73 Easting, you see how much they got right with it.
Bradley's killed more soviet tanks than abrams
The problem with with pentagon movie is that it’s so called “expert” dislikes anything that has technology and has an overemphasis on making things cheap for better logistics....over combat capability.
They still think the Korean War to be the cutting edge of war fighting.
The movie was a comedy, the book was written by a reformer, with the opinions that entails.
@@jackandersen1262 The book was also bullshit.
From what I recall of the Bradleys in Desert Storm (1990 - 1991), I personally thought the firing ports along the sides were idiotic. If the bad guys are that close, just get on the throttle and let the turret gunner handle the spray and pray.
The early Marder IFV's of the Bundeswehr also had firing ports in the sides. But they were plated over before the Bradley was even introduced.
If you break through a line of defence you'll have enemies very close to your side and rear, so in theory port holes make sense -- in theory. Having infantry fight mounted is a thing the Germans developed in WWII (and still the modus operandi of the German Panzergrenadiere calls for mounted and dismounted fighting), so there's that.
Still, in many cases ports are unnecessary and you can get the same thing done with other means.
Remember, originally it wasn’t gonna have a turret. Design created trying to meet too many requirements, and not being particularly good at any of them.
@@Rebel635csi It was always fonna have a turret.
The bradley isnt an APC, its an IFV, and it was always going to be an IFV, having been proposed as a reaction to the BMP.
@@Rebel635csi The Marder was designed in 1959 and went into service in 1971, a decade before the Bradley and it had a turret and portholes. The MILAN ATGM launcher came later, but even that was at the same time as the XM723 got it's TOW.
Apart from being a Scout the Marder does everything the Bradley does (it also has anti-helo capabilities) and the reason the Marder wasn't used as a scout is because we dropped the M41 and the older SPz 11-2 Kurz (a modified variant of the IFV of the same designation) for the SpPZ Luchs, a 8x8 wheeled two driver reconnaissance vehicle with the same gun as the Marder (so so fucking quiet that soldiers were instructed not to camp near it because there had been accidents where people got rolled over in their sleep)
So the problem isn't the Bradley's design, it's the execution.
Thank god, another upload. I was going through serious withdrawals 😱
I was in the first OSUT for the Bradley in 84 at Knox, and then at my first duty station in 2/1Cav 2AD we took our fresh Bradleys, an M1 and an Apache up to Ft Lewis to give a demonstration of how CAT Teams would work in practice. I know already Sir that you never liked Bradleys when you were on them because of lack of sleeping room, but my whole time on them, especially from 86 to 90 in Anvil Troop 1/11 Cav we called them Battle Winnebegos, since we rarely had full crews there was plenty of space. The A1's were an improvement definitely, no more swimming (did it twice, was glad when it was over) and slightly better armor, but my point is that in the long run Bradleys have held up better than expected in my opinion. I miss mine ;)
Ok I'm in love with the XM800. That thing is adorable.
Would have liked some mention of the Soviet BMP. I thought that vehicle had some impact on the Bradley’s design and development.
FMC actually tried their 25mm turret on a Chinese BMP and called the vehicle a NFV-1, in the 1980s.
@jojr
They knew very little if anything at all about BMP-1 while it was in development,
and judging by US requirements to protect against 14.5mm and 23mm ammo, and by the fact that after observers saw BMP on 1967 parade it was called on the West BMP-76PB (among other names) as caliber was misinterpreted to be 76mm, like on PT-76 tank, just like whole vehicle was considered to be based on PT-76,
it seems 73mm gun firing RPG-like ammunition capable of penetrating some 12-14 inches of steel was totally unexpected.
In 1968 ATAC did some research on ~30-45t designs protected against RPG ammo, along with some antitank missiles and even tank ammo, but they went nowhere, as at this moment in 1968-1971 even 22.5t vehicle was rejected as too heavy and expensive in favour of simplified ~15-17t designs.
When Israelis captured plenty of BMPs in 1973 war, some were handed other to US and were tested and measured, so exact armor thickness and what's required to penetrate it become known. That was important, as it looks like idea at the time was that instead of withstanding BMP's ammo, which had less than 50% chance of hitting target after 800m, one should destroy BMP at longer distances. That meant that vehicle could remain lightweight, but it failed to remain simple - hitting targets at 1200-1500m or more isn't easy.
Americans were unaware of BMP-2 until 1981, and first reports suggested that it had ramp at rear instead of doors (it didn't). But they correctly identified that it got autocannon.
Soviets were in fact developing BMP with autocannon for quite some time - starting from late 60s. Missile craze was gone, everyone else have put autocannons on their IFVs, and BMP with Czechoslovak autocannon was tested in Soviet Union at that time. Option with improved 73mm was developed and tested, but in bureaucratic struggle it lost to 30mm.
Bradley armor as it was, still about the same as one required in ~1964, was insufficient to protect against BMP-2's 30mm.
It will be fixed - on Bradley A2, which got into production in late 80s, half a dozen years after they become aware of BMP-2,
by replacing thin spaced steel armor with about an inch thick steel armor - which made Bradley several metric tons heavier, required upgrades in engine and suspension, turned most of firing ports unusable, made transportation on C141 Starlifter impossible, and swimming capability dubious - though it's better to ask Nicholas on that last one.
In 1978 General Accounting Office questioned whether Bradley protection was sufficient against - not current Soviet BMP "of 1960 vintage", but against possible "much improved version" which Soviets probably were already developing.
Bradley's project manager rejected it in 1979 saying "there are, in fact, no intelligence indications of major changes to the BMP"
@@skylancer4441 Yeah, the NFV-1 is in 1986
It had a ton. If you show up with an 113 against a BMP your squad is fucked. Not so with a Bradley.
@@skylancer4441 Even a vehicle with an autocannon can carry a rocket launcher. Methinks the 73mm Soviet weapon on the BMP-1 reflected a misconception of needing a "do it all" weapon, not unlike the 152mm gun/missile launcher we used on the M551 Sheridan and the M60A2 "Starship". It's seemed a small-caliber, auto-firing weapon and carry a LOT of rounds is better than a low-pressure BFG that can also fire a missile. What I've thought interesting is that the Soviets/Russians persisted with the missile capability with their 2A46 smootbore tank cannon, firing the "Kobra" missile as well. The penetration of the APFSDS rounds of the 125mm weapon at long ranges appears to be acceptable, so why bother with the missile, presumably with a HEAT warhead? Are Soviet tank cannons not accurate at long ranges?
I just rewatched this and was looking for a video like this; your timing could not be better!
It’s funny how you can still see something essentially Shermanesque lurking around in the design of those early IFVs
Thank you for bring an air of sanity and competence to the whole Pentagon Wars issue.
Hate to say it, but the whole process and definitions and the law / boxticking that Pentagon Wars showed are insanely true as well.
If we look at Norway's F35 program, you don't have to watch further than NRK's own documentary from one of the meetings with the Eurofighter guy to see where the corruption was and that it was already predetermined crap going on.
Video on the AeroGavin when?
The *M-113 "pop-up" Tow* was one of the attempts at improving the standard apc into a fighting vehicle. 1980 saw it's implementation in the 1st Cav infantry weapons platoons.
I remember seeing a directive regarding the process to escape the Bradley if it ended upside down. The process included removing a radio to access the escape hatch.
I do so love the scene of the Colonel explaining the trade-offs between aluminum and steel
Mod42, Which is idiotic, no IFV can stand up to a tank's main gun - no matter what it is made of. IIRC, the M2/M3 was designed to resist 14.5mm (KPV) rounds at all aspects an 23mm (ZSU) over the frontal ark. The aluminum armor does that and allows it to be carried in a C-130.
@@colbeausabre8842 spaced steel armor provides a lot of that protection, without it Bradley's side could withstand 7.62 at best.
Aluminum is not magic,
on XM701, which had no spaced armor, and which had versions with steel and aluminum hull, they saved 2 metric tons on that, as 24.5t vehicle become 22.5t vehicle.
It has nothing to do with C130, requirements were about C141 Starlifter and for some time AMST until later was cancelled.
Heavy IFVs, usually based on tank chassis for unification, could get the same protection as tank.
There were several attempts to get one for US Army, one in 1978 instead of Bradley, one in late 80s-early 90s as substitute or addition to Bradley, and one in late 2000s-early 2010s as another Bradley replacement under GCV program - though last one wasn't on tank chassis, and it's unclear whether they got actual tank-like protection or wasted all this 60-70t mass.
@@colbeausabre8842 Laughs in Marder 2 and Puma (heavy). Not to mention, that stupid requirement (carried by C-130) damaged so many armoured vehicles....
@@piotrd.4850 its not a stupid requirement when NATO's strongest military was either a week away by ship or a couple of days away by plane. In a week, the soviets could invade Europe completely, in only a couple of days they might reach Germany
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 C-130 requirement is stupid. The Herc is NOT a big aircraft both in pure lifting and internal volume. Designing a vehicle down JUST so it fits in the back of one is and was a waste of everyone's time.
Oh... and for a time when there WAS a NATO's strongest military and the highly trained personal within it were allowed to do their job as skilled and dedicated professionals. Fk I miss the days before July 2021.
Thank you Rob and the collection for hosting Nicholas.
I always thought the Bradley was a bad-ass vehicle. I was sitting in the back of one during OIF 1 and watched on the gunners screen as he smoked a mortar crew setting up next to a river at night with HE. I thought, wow, I wish they could make a Bradley with a 120mm mortar in the back. All you need is some hatches that open up skyward and a turntable.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but just in case you're not, you're pretty much describing the mortar variant of the 113 which I'm kind of surprised that you never saw if you were in a mechanized unit (hence why I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not). Now, there was also a lot of talk about bringing in a turret-less version of the Bradley which would have been able to replace the 113 one-for-one, and have mortar carrier and medevac variants, which would have been nice but I don't think anything ever came out of those discussions.
Would've loved to have it though. When coming home from the field I'd have to floor the gas on my 113 to keep up with the Brads. Felt like the damn thing was going to explode on me.
Yep, as soon as you mentioned a mortar system built into the vehicle, I remembered seeing such a thing.
@@Teeabee actually a turret less Bradley varient does now exist, but it only entered service like last year
@@matthiuskoenig3378 it only took them 30 years to take off the bradley's turret huh?
@@Teeabee Yeah, I was an 11C and the mortar carrier version was the 1064A3. I remember hearing of the turret-less Bradley mortar carrier variant when I went through IMLC, but I wanted a 25mm gun in a revolving turrett, not the 50 cal they put in it's place. You would need ammo racks too and those take up allot of space.
He omitted the part with "Full disclosure; I used to command a Bradley and a squad of Bradley's."
I think you meant he commanded a Plt and later a company of them. Maybe to command a BN??
@@DB-yj3qc Thanks, I wasn't sure about a company.
I served from 1970 to 1990 in vehicle and equipment maintenance. I was stationed at Ft. Benning in 1974 to 1975 at 2/29th Infantry, The School Brigade, where new combat arms Army Officers received their indoctrination into the fields they were to be assigned. I was in the Infantry Support Company with the Infantry M-113's when a small group of civilians came to view the M-113 for planning the new 'Fighting Vehicle'. I remember one of the people state they wanted portholes in the side to use instead of some backwards facing contraption to fire out of. He joked that a 'Polish rifle' was out of the question, implying he wanted the weapons and operators facing the direction they would be shooting. After listening to this report, I'm surprised what I witnessed happened in very late 1974 or early 1975! I was promoted to SSG in 1975 and rotated to Germany. About 4 years later I had my MOS changed to 63E30 (M-60 vehicle maintenance) and then, again 3 years later rotated to Germany and assigned to an M-1 Battalion as a SFC 63E40. As the HHC Motor Sergeant, I was responsible for maintenance on the M-3 'Scout' version of the Bradly with no portholes in a M-1 Tank Battalion. Granted, the Bradly vehicles are 'huge', but there were even complaints the HUMVEE was TOO BIG to replace the M-151 series Jeeps. In Germany, with it's many forests, that size issue for the M-2, M-3 and HUMVEE really was was not an issue. Their improvements made it so much easier to service and repair that I appreciated the design efforts and the final products that were fielded.
Thanks for the Video. Brings back a number of memories. My first job in the Army as a 2LT snowbirding for AOB in June 75 was in the Armored Scout Vehicle Reconnaissance Task Force. I was editing the final report based on feedback from the Armor School Commandant then MG Starry The Task Force had tested a wide range of wheeled, tracked and twister vehicles and none proved satisfactory. You mentioned one big requirement. In those days, fighting the Soviet horde, Scouts would dismount to get good observation (as found out later as a Scout Plt Ldr in Germany). The vehicle was viewed as a home base that could haul 2 dismounted scouts and equipment which included a small GSR (Radar), Acoustic sensors and at least one 250cc dirt bike. Unfortunately the Army never produced the small GSR nor the acoustic sensors and commanders were too afraid of 18 year old soldiers dirt biking so that did not last long. The vehicle had to provide enough firepower to allow the teams to get back and fighting the horde meant you had to defeat BRDM, BMPs and perhaps a tank. So an armored tracked box with gun and AT missile was viewed as necessary. Armor later moved away from the mother ship idea but it was sound at the time. What the movie kind of gets right is that once Inf saw the CAV Bradley design, they wanted it. Some generals wanted to keep the 9 man MICV as the primary with a small number of big turret but Inf went all in even though they had to chop the squad to do it. 30 years after working in the TF, I was a Capability Developer and watched the movie. Hilarious, accurate in personalities but not particular accurate in Bradley development. Take the can't stop a tank round. Everyone understood that, would like 23mm but I think it was 14.5 proof. You don't test for things that it is not required to stop. if you want to stop it buy the Merkava. One side note. The TF also developed recommendations for the interim scout based on the M113. Using recovered M114A1 turrets, some scout 113s would have a 20mm turret and the TF designed a very nice 2 TOW turret with the gunner and all equipment except for the TOW mounts (AH-1 mounts) inside the track. Used a very big Fiber Optic tube to bring the sight picture down. The Army liked that but instead of picking the very nice TF design, picked the infamous M901 Hammerhead design with the Hammerhead too heavy for the old M114 turret.
This is rather informative and interesting. I also liked how you personally showed examples. Thank you.
5 years as a Bradley gunner before I changed my MOS to 95B. I can only hope they have improved from the M2A1’s I used.
0:25 I never knew the Bradley was developed with British engine technology. I see an oil basin under the tank to catch the drips. ;) :D
Drip pans are standard for every US military vehicle.
And chock blocks.
@@tbeller80 When it stops dripping, worry.
My first year in the Army was in 93.
Was at Ft. Benning. Got my license for fun with the Bradley. I was a 55B. Got to help out with demonstrations for the basic training. Spent the summer of 94 driving Bradley’s and shooting off 3000 Law rockets…
Thanks, that was really good. I have wondered quite a few times if I was right linking that clip. I will now link that clip with a clean conscience!
Bradley/Warrior, both seem so similar. There are obviously big differences, could they be explained in an oncoming video?
Warrior was intended from the start to be many vehicles on a common hull, rather than one design that could 'do everything'.
Warrior has a shitty clip-fed gun, no stabilizer, and manual traverse because EMP resistance on the nuclear battlefield
The coax is an electrically powered chain gun, because somehow its more EMP resistant than glorious FN MAG/L7.
Also no ATGM and the round is the same alright-but-not-spectacular APDS shell its always had.
@@MandolinMagi Actually, some of the later models were fitted with MILAN of Javelin missiles.
@@GoranXII Not really. Sometime Warriors carrying MILAN teams would put the launcher on top, but it was never really a thing.
Desert Warrior had a Bushmaster II 25mm with twin TOW launcher, A/C, fitted extra fixed weapons with ports for dismounts, desert specific mods, etc. A hybrid for specific Middle East customers.
the vehicle actually turning out to be pretty good is the ultimate irony
It isn't ironic. The pentagon wars is a bunch of self serving BS.
By what measure? Did it ever do what it was planned for? Was the gun needed? Was the original armor good?
@@0MoTheG It killed more Soviet-made tanks than the M1 Abrams in Desert Storm. So yeah it did what it was planned for....
@@doozledorf7036 Reall, the US could have gotten away with JUST fielding Bradleys they were doing so good. Would have been the ultimate fuck you to the haters.
@@0MoTheG yes the gun is needed for infantry support it's a 25 mm autocannon it's not exactly taking up a whole lot of space and the armor is good for dealing with 14.7 mm HMG fire which is what is rated against
Outstanding video sir. Keep em comin Chieftain!
Awesome video, I think this is your best one yet. Thank you!
When an 1980s era report says that "speed is armor" for the Bradley. Nothing else needs to be said.
I mean, you can't shoot what you can't hit
that goes for most things. getting hit isn't fun anymore--hasn't been since they started putting lung-melter juice in bullets
As was said about battlecruisers back in the day.
@@afx935 "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." -- Vice Admiral Beatty at Jutland
They were right. No IFV armor is going to stand a hit from a tank round.
The MP on pentagon wars just wanted to "prove" the army wrong that 'tecnology wasn't all that important', soo he could bring forth his 'blitz fighter' (aka a-10 without avionics)
Such a bad idea. Even the A10 I'd a bad idea these days vs a peer opponent.
Great job, Chieftan! I love it when you show the reality in the fiction of other people's tales. Thanks.
Never had to serve in one but since being a kid I have always loved the Bradley! Bradleys and Abrams go together like peas and carrots
I retired after 22 years in the Army (MSG) First time I used the phrase "Good Idea Fairy" in my civilian workplace, all I got were confused stares. 😁. Had to explain it to them.
Still serving. We call them CORGIs now, Commanding Officers' Really Good Ideas. Strangely, they are never that good...
@@TrevlynJ CORGIS - I don't know if I could get used to that! 😂. I was at Division level for quite a while, so the term GIF seemed more appropriate - it was usually Captains, Majors, E7's, etc trying to get noticed by the CG by inserting a good sounding idea. Emphasis on the word 'sounding'. 🙄
Aside from the fact that I found The Pentagon Wars to be amusing and entertaining. It really nailed the essence or feel of design by committee, and trying to design something as a jack of all trades master of all (yes, all). And I don't mean just within this one vehicle or even just military stuff, but everywhere. Whether or not it is historically accurate is irrelevant in regards to those two things.
Yeah. Even if it's not a 100% accurate portrayal of the development of the Bradley it's going to be very familiar to anyone who has worked on a large engineering project that's been running too long and has cost too much money. It's also very funny.
Until you remember they fucking lie constantly in the movie and book about the development xD
They as in the guy who made it/wrote it
Of course the Design by committee "Feature Creep" scene should have been in y'know. RUSSIAN since all the features on the bradly the writer regarded as unneccessary were straight up lifted from the BMP.
Isn't that jack of all trades, master of none but better than master of one?
@@Joshua_N-A yes its Jack of all trade master of none is/but often times better that master of one.
Though in the Bradley case delete "master of none..." and replace it with "all"
It was interesting seeing those prototype vehicles.
I hope we can more in the future.
Man seeing that yard again is cool, I went to basic right around the corner and always noticed all the armor there
Is adding firing ports really the work of the good idea fairy if literally every nations APC and IFV designers are adding firing ports to their vehicles in the 60's, 70's, and 80's?
From literature I've read from the period firing ports always seem to be one of those things that every tanker put on their wishlists but likewise I've never seen anything about them being useful. Similar to rear mounted MG turrets on interwar tanks. Sounds like a great feature, but realistically if you need to use it things have gone very wrong to the point it won't save you.
@@dexecuter18 As I understand it firing ports were needed specifically for the nuclear battlefield, a lot of the strange things about the Bradley come from the fact that it was meant to be able to bring infantry to fight in an area that had been recently nuked. It'd need to defend itself and friendly tanks from poor communist bastards with RPGs who had inhaled lethal doses of radioactive dust but weren't quite dead yet, while protecting the infantry inside from said lethal radiation. When enough infantry got more or less equipped with proper NBC gear toward the end of the Cold War, firing ports on IFVs became obsolete, but if WW3 had kicked off in the '70s or '80s they absolutely would have been vitally necessary for the IFV's mission.
@@xeroprotagonist How do you keep a firing port NBC safe?
@@Marc83Aus internal overpressure and fill most of the space with a gun barrel; what little air can move is going from inside the vehicle to outside it
Israel had good success with armoured cav troops fighting mounted during the Arab Israeli wars, so it was considered the latest proven doctrine.
in the warrior book it says there was joint testing tween american and british for both warrior and brradley .
The side armour upgrade covered the firing ports but as you mentioned previously the side guns are still inventory items.. one would suspect just to avoid questions at the time if they were scrapped ..
The part about the development is interesting because when it cames to the Spanish equivalent to the Bradley (the ASCOD Pizarro) what they did was design a good IFV, and then make variants for diferent unit requirements (scouts, armoured units, and so on). We already had an APC in form of the BMR (Spanish for "Medium Armoured Transport on Wheels".
XM800T
America's CVRT
Please do an inside the hatch, it's one of my favorite experimental armored vehicles
i laught at pentagon wars, but then remember bmp-3 and understand that all this relatable to soviet union too.
1) tank gun
2) rockers
3) autocannon
4) amphibious
5) crew can shoot on the move
6) armored
but drive only 6 infantry man.
It has tons of silly things, but there is a very weird unbelievably exciting element to the movie, its expertly written there is a genuine energy form it and good performances. I remember seeing it blind on tv ages ago and it felt so nice. It was a nice summer too.
A great idea for a video.
And very enjoyable to me.
That last line was especially, well written.
(.....to a lie'.)
Thank you.
☮
Excellent video. It would be interesting to know just how much the ACV-15 took from the development projects.
Edit: having had a look it seems like ACV-15 in an own brand AIFV which is essentially XM723.
Now we need a comparison with the Warsaw pact and the NATO allies equivalent, bien sûr.
The Soviets seemed to be able to accept compromises though.
>Our crew won't fit in this low profile tank.
No problem, we'll only recruit short tankists.
>The gun can't depress.
This isn't a defensive tank, we won't be hull down.
>We have no room for fuel.
Put a fuel tank in the rear doors, the infantry should already be outside by the time the BMP is under fire.
The BMP-1 could qualify.
"We need troop carrier better than BTR-50."
"Da. Let's give it more firepower than Dushka."
"We have 23mm cannon. Light, potent, capable."
"Nice. We also should make it cross river, like BTR-50. But aluminum too expensive. And while we're on the topic of navy things, we should give it port holes so soldiers can shoot AK from."
"Yes. We make hull big like boat then. Thin armor so it can float."
"But now we have large target, that will be fighting with tanks."
"We make it low-profile then. The soldiers can hunch a little more. Plus, we can reduce number of soldiers carried to 8."
"But we still need way to kill tank. 23mm is a peashooter to tank."
"Yes, the Malyutka missile. But doesn't it have a minimum range of 500 meters?"
"Yes."
"But then that means NATO tank can just drive up to troop carrier and pop it. We can't have that happen. Let's put a big cannon that can kill even a Patton, so if they get close, they can pop it."
"That sounds like a lot of recoil for a light vehicle. Let's make it a rocket cannon with HEAT shells."
"Brilliant, comrade! HEAT shells for everything!"
"Yes. It make big boom. Must be effective against anything."
"We can even use it as a scout!"
"Yes!"
Later on:
"Sir, I have question."
"Yes?"
"Is this the BMP-1?"
"Yes. It's our latest and greatest infantry fighting vehicle."
"So you're telling me the BMP is a troop carrier that can't carry troops, a scout too big to scout, and a pseudo-tank with less armor than a Trabant, but enough firepower to level Moscow?"
@@classifiedad1 BMP-1 act as a squad APC of mechanised/motorised infantry force. It designed specific to hault arse 10 people as a squad of mechanised infantry squad. Which mean it is a battle taxi that drop off and ptfo while the tank would act as fire support for troops. The 73mm is just an SPG-9 that it slap on. It designed sorely for that job as battle taxi only. Pt76 act as a scout for armoured while brdm2 act as scout for mechanised infantry and other forces. Soviets like to draw more dicks to fit the specifics uses than combine all at one. Afterall, it goes after more dicks look scarier than a big dick phylosophy
Former Bradley gunner/crewman. The two biggest problems with the Bradleys was the turret motors and the transmissions breaking down. They either couldn’t pull out of the motor pool or they couldn’t shoot.
Whilst I enjoyed your many videos on WWII tanks, it looks like this collection could yield an awful lot of tanks and APCs we never really knew about. Your mission...
Oh my, that XM-800t is so cute! Like a chibi Bradley! xD Hmm, that hull looks close to a sheridan, is there any connection?
Resembles the stingray of the Royal Thai Army
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it was kinda cute HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@@toukairin354 The Sheridan and the Stingray were both Cadillac Gage products.
@Baryonyx Walkeri The XM-800t and Bradley were FMC products.
Aside the know quality of information and entertainment, I'm mostly still trying to figure out how you timed reading your notes for exactly the duration of the clip insert... That was smooth!
It was very smooth. But probably pre selected clips, and he's wearing a watch.
Outstanding video and presentation.
In 1984-85,I serving with the 1/7th 3ID in Germany at a 11B. When I arrived there we just traded in are 113s for Bradley an I became a 11M. We tried to swim one. It sanked thank God the crew got out. The flotation skirt was a pain to reinstall and the port firing weapons were useless. 😔
3:40 the xm-8 in the backgrounds looks sad :(
The Panzer III further back isn't going anywhere for a while either.
Everything in that museum/scrapyard looks sad tbh. Damn shame.
@@NicerDicerSmart true
Looks like the folks at the Infantry Museum have some restoration work ahead of them on a few vehicles.
In 1986 I began doing insurance surveys in Northern California.
This included San Jose where FMC manufactured the Bradleys.
It was fun to eat lunch while several of these vehicles ran around the test track.
By the way FMC stands for Farm Machinery Corporation.
What a wonderfully informative video. But now I'm really interested in that short prototype that kinda looks like a shorter Marder 2 IFV
I was nodding along to the parody... I agreed with every word. I would personally take a platform any day over a "just" a vehicle.
He made a video about what Pentagon Wars got right because it's quicker than explaining what it got wrong.
As a 14R in 93 was trained on the A0 and thru my entire career on the Bradley was on the A2. Never been in a ODS or M6. Even had the M231 in our arms room (drew and fired them at gunnery).
Good times
I’m a retired Army 11B but started my career in 1983 as an 11H so I’ve seen both the Anti-Armor and Bradley worlds and it’s common to be gravitated to the “Pentagon Wars” view of Bradley development without discussing the egos in play that formed the screenplay for the movie and book which is well discussed here on YT. In the mid-late 70’s we have to develop a vehicle to deal with hordes of Soviet tanks flooding into Europe so lethality, situational awareness, high protection and speed were critical to survival. The first Bradleys did very well and had very minor teething problems that had minimal impact on unit training cycles. All tracked vehicles are a pain in the ass to use and maintain so complaining from the ranks is always the same through the decades. The Bradley was a huge leap forward into multi-role capabilities that filled the gap that would have required more development and evaluation programs to fill which is always discounted from videos like this. While in Iraq in 2003-04 my unit had no total losses due to enemy action and they saved a lot of lives while under attack.
Bradley proven that T-90M can spin its turret infinitely and disabled. Thats Bradley being only using its 25mm M919
There's both a Pz III and a M-8 Sitting and rusting there. 2:36 it hurts my soul a little.
At first I thought it was a MBT-70 at 6:00, It's a XM-803! Wow. I also didn't know the XM-803 was still alive, I thought they all got scrapped. XM-803/MBT-70 tour when?
All the vehicles in the collection are scheduled for restoration. I saw the majority of these when they were in open air display at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Some of the German armor had been exposed for 70 years with steel plates in the floors of vehicles like the Marder and other open topped vehicles rusted through. The good news is they are all being cared for now and will be preserved for generations to come while future hover tanks will glide by outside!
Although parts of the initial concept of the Bradley came from Pentagon brass "wish fairies", the subsequent development and improvement of the vehicle has come directly from the input of soldiers in the field. This invaluable input has made the vehicle more functional, reliable, and safe. Not to mention damn fun to tool around in. 😊 👍
I was on active duty when they Bradly and Abrams were fielded. The unit to which I was assigned was given the task of rebuilding the ranges at the Grafenwoehr Training Area.
👍👍
Solid information!
19DD3 here, outstanding video.
I'm going to have to remember that phrase; "It is a farce, but not a lie", when non-military people ask me about the "Pentagon Wars" movie.
No, it's both a farce and a lie.
Alot of it is a stright up lie though.
As opposed to fireing ports, I wonder about the Chieftains oppinions on the combat hatches in Swedish CV90 and earlier pbv-302s where the infantry can fight mounted.
Bmp also des the same I believe.
At least the early versions of the Marder also had those, not sure if they were retained on later versions though.
Firing ports allow for CBRN conditions.
Outside of CBRN conditions, open hatches work better (see the M113 ACAV).
But once people start throwing the ugly stuff around, firing ports let you stay out of the MOPP gear for as long as possible.
loved these last two vids
What I find more impressive than the Bradley's development is Chieftain's ability to wait out the correct amount of time for the pentagon wars clips
Pre planned script and good production.
I love the funny little thumb twiddling while the clip is playing.
Completely unnecessary and wholly appreciated production effort.
They must have done something right...It's killed more Tanks in Desert Storm then the M1....As they produce more Bradley's then tanks. Not that the 25mm Depleted rds did a nasty job on tanks...
Trained on the M-3, drove M113s, M977s, and HMMWVs. I feel it made too many compromises to be a IFV. It is too big and bulky for actual scouting. Good for screening, but too big and loud for sneaking and peeking. It is taller, slower and louder than the M-1 is is scouting for.
Lazerpig did an excellent video on this as well. Offers some different ways of viewing this.
Wow!!! I was the design engineer with a team of designers/draftsmen at FMC who modified the M113 with portholes. I had forgotten that job.
I also was on the team sent to Vietnam to investigate the damaged M113's there. No troopers wanted to ride inside a M113. Everyone rode on top.
The M113 could swim but only in quiet waters. The M113 had almost zero mine resistance. Also RPG's would burn holes through the 3 inches of aluminum of each side plate. Punching a hole in the opposite side after traversing 100 inch space.
My Ex GFs dad worked on the BMP and the T72 and its interesting realiIng you all had to go through the same difficulties in designing a troop carrier@@michaelharper4989