@@user-md5im4bt5iIn real life this was a series of tests that werent public events meant to show the invulnerability of the bradley, it was meant to be a set of tests to see the effects of penetration on it. If you fill a multi million dollar vehicle with ammo, then blow it up, all youve done is waste millions of dollars and confirmed : yes, anti tank weapon can indeed deatroy a IFV. But if you shoot at a vehicle with no ammo, you can see the effects of the penetration such as toxic vapours and see if everything is up to spec.
@@user-md5im4bt5i That's something that they got from the movie wrong: They filled the ammo with sand and replaced the fuel with water to better asses the damage suffered. If a Bradley is hit with an ATGM and it's fully combat loaded then the only thing you are gonna discover is that an IFV blows up when hit with an anti tank missile (something that you obviously already know), for the cost of several millions in tax payer dollars for having destroyed an experimental combat vehicle. By not having It combat loaded, then it won't blew up and you can actually see which parts of the vehicle are actually damaged when hit by an ATGM and therefore maybe be able to do something about it. But because the author of the book, Col. James Burton is an idiot who doesn't know jacksh*t about anything this was misrepresented in the film.
What a dumb comment, like i cant even argue or word a response im just completely dumbfounded at how stupid this comment is. Did you even watch the movie?? did we watch the same video?? how the hell did 2 thousand people share the same sentiments!?
The problem with this clip is that the Bradley isn't supposed to get hit like that it doesn't have heavy armor it's not a tank it's a ifv so it survives by moving fast not tanking hits
It doesn’t even survive by going fast. It just survives by not being hit. Either you don’t bring it somewhere with where you expect tanks or you bring some tanks of your own so the enemy has something more important to shoot
@@strikecommander1121irl, the military obviously knew the m2 Bradley wouldn't survive any hit from an atgm even at the side. Burton insist on putting live ammo even though it will be a waste of money and also they intentionally fill the fuel with water and ammo inert to gather data. A destroyed Bradley won't bring data on what happenm
@@nekocekoBiHMKit literally did though? Just look at what it’s done in the last 3 decades alone. The movie this short is taken from is nothing but lies.
Yeah, this movie is a total BS. The real protagonist in this movie was anti tech, and also, if you were ever to fire a TOW AT missile at a fully fueled and armed Bradley IFV, it would explode. The movie is not based on the real story behind Bradley development.
@@caspar508its inspired by a book written by a guy who hate the program Most of the thing in there is either false or stupid, as the commenter said, hes an anti-tech
@@imreallynoob8311 Yeah the original book’s author thinks that modern jets don’t need any sort of avionics, missiles nor countermeasures like chaff/flares. He’s crazy lol
@@imreallynoob8311Good underlying commentary, and art can come from “not the best” of people you know? The commentary is that we do suffer from some level of incompetence, over bloating, profit over quality, and downright corruption in the Military Industrial Complex. The guy writing the book was a part of it too. He didn’t know it was a commentary on himself aswell, but it ended up being so. Again. Critical analysis isn’t for the weak. Aka don’t take the movie for something of a 1:1 documentary. It is a comedy, touching on REAL issues. In a campy fashion. I think you just don’t understand what a “not documentary” is. Wait till you find out Superman wasn’t about a real guy but rather concepts on human interaction lol.
The guy who wrote this book thought the heat leaking at rocket was a waste. Now the javelin saved an entire country. He thought the bradley was garbage and it destroyed more tanks in desert storm than tanks did. He thought the tomcat was a brick and that radar was useless on a fighter to which I can only say lol, lmao even
This is just a fictitious movie based on a disgraced attention seeking reformer. Who believes anything that the army did to get test results was cheating. The M2 Bradley was under budget and was loved by the crew's that had to live in them during deployment. Unlike the bmp family, which was dangerous and uncomfortable. Especially the bmp 1, which it autoloader could break or amputate the limbs of guner or commander. Also, being pointless as the crew gun loading was slightly faster than the autoloader. So, the export versions of the bmp 1 were more effective than the home version.
Just to those who aren’t aware: they’re not saying the Bradley wasn’t going to die to the TOW. They intended for the Bradley to be unloaded, instead it was fully loaded with its military standard ammunition package which caused a dangerous ammunition explosion next to the viewing stands.
The logic of the majority of people here is nonexistent. It’s a chemical warhead, lack of armor doesn’t matter since it’s a HEAT missile. If it hits the Bradley and ignites the ammo, then kaboom.
No it’s not a tank killer. That’s what this movie didn’t get. It got missiles so it wouldn’t be totally defenseless when it met a tank. Its purpose is to move soldiers into combat and stay. It’s supposed to have the impact of a tank on infantry but is not heavy or well armed enough to fight a real tank.
@@pizzarollking4397No, a mobility kill is literally a kill on a armored vehicle, if it loses effectiveness, it might as well have been dead-? It is just standard military action report or whatever-
The movie and book are total bs. The book was written by an Air Force general who thought that planes shouldn’t have radar. He wasn’t even involved so the Bradley program.
242 25mm gun. 7.62 coax. 6-8 tow missiles. Brads move in groups of 4-20+. The Bradley is underestimated because Ukraine is making them look useless. They don’t use the right tactics that make brads deadly.
Public Relations is what kept the US War machine going You can look at the phantom as the largest mig killer, despite it usually killing gen-2 mig-21s and Mig-17s...flown mostly by Israelis...against arabs...who had bare to no training You may see the OH-6 or its modern counterpart the MH-6 as a beautiful war machine, a light helo...that lost almost all of its units during the Vietnam war.
The Bradley is kind of just overkill, it’s an AFV that doesn’t really carry well, you either take men or take ammo and it’s kinda like, why? At this point it’s more of a recon tank like the Bundeswehr Wiesel
Its job: bring troops into battle, and the. Stay and support them. Tanks Job. Support infantry, counter armor and fortifications and inspire fear in the enemy. Any other vehicle is a battle taxi to a certain extent, get them near the battle and run.
It’s designed to do recon and support infantry in combat against infantry and light fortifications which is why it doesn’t carry that many soldiers. It’s not a battle taxi.
Growing up is laughing at the funny movie ridiculing the Bradley. Being an adult is realizing the Bradley is one of the most successful armored fighting vehicles in recent times.
What people don’t know is that this was originally intended as an armored troop transport to replace the M113 which was aluminum hulled which might have worked well against small arms fire for Korean and World War II scenarios, but the Vietnam experience proved it no longer fully capable in modern warfare especially against rocket propelled grenades. With too many hands in the pot, the design ended up getting changed over and over so instead of a troop carrier for 15+ soldiers, it now became a fully turreted Fighting Vehicle that could only carry a maximum of only six fully equipped soldiers sardined in together. Other variants could only carry three scouts. The constant cramming of more and more missions on what had been simply originally intended as an armored troop carrier led to the “final” redesign where fuel tanks were positioned on the SIDES creating a surefire scenario (pun intended) of instant soldier immolation in the event of an RPG hit. Redesigning the Bradley would have created another delay and additional cost to an already delayed and over-budget program. In an attempt to make the Bradley appear survivable, and to secure quicker approval-flawed design and soldiers lives be damned-the prep crew was instructed to fill the fuel tanks with water before the live fire demonstration of the Bradley’s ability to take hits with “survivable damage”. USAF Col. Burton who was QA’ing the program and who had been overruled by bigger interests and other apparatchik in the DOD pleaded with the prep crew not to follow those instructions but to fill the fuel tanks with what they were meant to be filled with-FUEL. And so they did. The result was a real world scenario of a Bradley fireball vulnerability. This led to another delay in the program as now the Bradley design had to be fixed, and the Colonel was immediately transferred out of the program to a desk job somewhere but he refused, and instead took the road to retirement. He basically lost his job. This caused a Congressional Inquiry into the malfeasance of the Bradley’s flawed design, and while a lot got swept under the rug of hand wringing and some acknowledgement of Colonel Burton’s points, the end result was that the Bradley finally became SURVIVABLE and quite capable, losses in the battlefields of Iraq and Ukraine notwithstanding. It turned out pretty well and thousands of soldiers lives were saved from a flawed design, and battles were won. Thanks to Col. Burton’s insistence on a survivable and better design sooner rather than later, and the Ballistics Research Laboratory’s quicker compliance installing the those designs more quickly. Yes, it meant the end of the Colonel’s career, but it saved American lives and secured battlefield victories.
The Bradley was designed in an infantry support role not as a dedicated troop transport. The Bradley also had things like water filled gas tanks and sand for ammo during missile tests so that the designers could study the shrapnel patterns and what gets penetrated and how much damage is done. Burton also had very little to do with the actual design process and when he got pissy that the military did something he didn’t like he retired and wrote a book with clear bias towards his beliefs about how the military was wrong and he was right. Stop believing the words of reformers who barely had a hand in the design process. The Bradley is one of the greatest armored vehicles in the world.
Pentagon Wars, it's a dark comedy which is supposed to shows how the M3 Bradley IFV is developed, but this is a misinformation by the author, who's part of the "Reformers", I suggest watch the video by Spookston and LazerPig
Damn...the US best modern IFV and the symbol of Ukraine army. It very iconic that Russian make bounty for they soldier who hunt down it or a Leopard since the first time both appear in front.
This movie is based on a book that author of tought that modern jets should be tanky and with just cannons, no radars, no modern avionics, no ejecton seats, missiles, counter measures etc.. He also tought that M113 were the best vehicles in the world
200 more ordered in 2024. The real question is what do you think of BMP’s. Because this is our version and it has out performed almost every other IFV out there. Minus certain countries with different needs like Israel’s versions.
@@DmitryYazov519yeah, but it is able to - blind the tank -mobility kill it - destroy the turret drive The Bradley did all of this. The t-90 was reduced to scrap. A fpv drone just finished the job.
@@DmitryYazov519 yea but they will rip up everything that isn’t inside, also they frontally can, given you shoot the same spot over and over, warthunder dosnt model that
Lol not even remotely the same chassis and drones suck at taking out bradlies they take out T92s much easier since their ammo blows their top off. It's land mines doing the real work in this war.
You're right, by God! We should just abandon all armor and mobility and go back to trench warfare. After all, going out into battle makes you "drone food."
Movie is Pentagon wars. So alot of people don't understand why so they just spam "it's not a tank" comments The context is that the officer handling the bradley test notices that they've been faking test results by giving the vehicle empty cans and sand instead of the real thing. He wanted a real result so he ordered the men to load it with real ammunition and fuel. He wanted to help reduce the catastrophic effect by redesigning it or letting it go but the commanding officer said the vehicle is perfect already... Until they witnessed this, a real test.
The reason for all of what you described and the flame retardant coating inside, is to see exactly what is damaged/destroyed when the missile hits without risk of burning up your evidence. That way you know what to isolate, what to up armor, and where the most risk to the troops are inside the vehicle. What do you learn when your test subject is just destroyed? What results can you draw from a burned wreck? That an IFV will be destroyed by an AT munition? The entire military already knew that. The protagonist (the writer of the book this movie was based on) was the only one oblivious to this fact and had a project that was competing for funding with the Bradley... which goes a little way to explain the portrayal of the Army brass here.
@supercoolguy43 to answer your second paragraph, it is for deciding what should be the standard ammunition capacity instead of shoving the whole thing full of ammunition and sending it to battle. At the time, Bradley has been tested Couple of times with sand, but it still doesn't simulate the size of damage. Doesn't show how much is too much, and how much is survivable. Glad things worked out for bradley tho, but that door is still a trap when the thing gets hit
@@zde1532 ANY meaningful amount of ammunition exploding inside ANY armoured vehicle is going to reduce the crew to mincemeat baked onto the walls of the fighting compartment; that's exactly why the Abrams has blow-out panels over the 120mm locker, to vent that explosion OUTSIDE the crew spaces. In real life, the Colonel's proposed tests were deliberately unrealistic and knowingly aimed at killing the Bradley project in favour of something that would be cheaper, less capable, and produced in larger numbers, which would inevitably result in that force suffering MORE casualties in a shooting war than if they'd had Bradleys. At best, it was a callous willingness to 'accept' losses that using a more capable system would prevent; of course, there was probably also a strong element of trying to screw over the Army for the sake of getting more funding for the Air Force.
He spent billions on tests they were never designed to pass. How many times do you need to shoot a Honda with a tomahawk missile to realize maybe the Honda was not ment to be able to do that.
Wow, a dedicated anti-tank missile killed something that isn’t a tank. Very cool.
the punch is not that it exploded, but that they wanted to shoot at an empty BMP and there would be no damage, and to extol this as invulnerability
@@user-md5im4bt5iIn real life this was a series of tests that werent public events meant to show the invulnerability of the bradley, it was meant to be a set of tests to see the effects of penetration on it.
If you fill a multi million dollar vehicle with ammo, then blow it up, all youve done is waste millions of dollars and confirmed : yes, anti tank weapon can indeed deatroy a IFV.
But if you shoot at a vehicle with no ammo, you can see the effects of the penetration such as toxic vapours and see if everything is up to spec.
@@user-md5im4bt5i That's something that they got from the movie wrong: They filled the ammo with sand and replaced the fuel with water to better asses the damage suffered.
If a Bradley is hit with an ATGM and it's fully combat loaded then the only thing you are gonna discover is that an IFV blows up when hit with an anti tank missile (something that you obviously already know), for the cost of several millions in tax payer dollars for having destroyed an experimental combat vehicle.
By not having It combat loaded, then it won't blew up and you can actually see which parts of the vehicle are actually damaged when hit by an ATGM and therefore maybe be able to do something about it.
But because the author of the book, Col. James Burton is an idiot who doesn't know jacksh*t about anything this was misrepresented in the film.
A heavy ATGM that can penetrate the NATO Triple Target...against the side armour of an IFV
What a dumb comment, like i cant even argue or word a response im just completely dumbfounded at how stupid this comment is.
Did you even watch the movie?? did we watch the same video?? how the hell did 2 thousand people share the same sentiments!?
The problem with this clip is that the Bradley isn't supposed to get hit like that it doesn't have heavy armor it's not a tank it's a ifv so it survives by moving fast not tanking hits
It doesn’t even survive by going fast. It just survives by not being hit. Either you don’t bring it somewhere with where you expect tanks or you bring some tanks of your own so the enemy has something more important to shoot
did you even watch the film?
Та ладно. Он в Украине на войне Бредли, правда уже модернизированный получил попадание двумя ПТРК. И выжил. Очень живучая машина.
@@PositifonijiaThe film isn’t accurate, if you want accuracy then watch Lazerpig’s video on it.
But it has a big gun, so everyone is going to see that and fire everything they have. Try telling that's a IFV to the enemy!
Ahh yes, expecting an IFV to survive a missile that can kill an Abrams MBT
How easy you find excuses when it is not fitting the official propaganda! Impresive! How can you live so full of sh1t?
I think the problem was, that they packed the vehicle with ammunition.
@@amisauto4360 exactly, the ammo cooked off sending the turret to low earth orbit
@@amisauto4360 exactly what I was thinking
Ahh yes expecting an IFV to survive a missile that can kill literally every armored vehicle/Tank in existence with a perfect side shot like that.
It’s an Anti TANK missile, designed to go through much thicker armor. What did they think would happen?
It wasn't supposed to have live rounds in it
A vehicle demonstration should not have live ammo that would be like beaching a ship just so you can inspect the algae on the hull,it makes zero sense
They thought putting your mother in would stop the anti tank round
@@strikecommander1121irl, the military obviously knew the m2 Bradley wouldn't survive any hit from an atgm even at the side. Burton insist on putting live ammo even though it will be a waste of money and also they intentionally fill the fuel with water and ammo inert to gather data. A destroyed Bradley won't bring data on what happenm
@@strikecommander1121 trust me pal it wouldn’t have mattered either way it’s an instant kill regardless … because that’s what TOW is designed to do
The only complaint ive ever heard from bradley crews was the apparent lack of AC
If we follow this movie's logic, if the 3 generals had another round of talks with the colonel, they might have suggested to put a strong AC in it😂
every war thunder newbie with full ammo
Or when you unlock new ammo and forget to remove the excess before spawning
😂
Bro I was literally thinking about this LMAO! I went so long before I realized my own ammo was killing me 5X more than the enemies shots!
the irony that the Bradley ended up being one of the most badass IFV's in existence.
Sure it did, honey
@@nekocekoBiHMKit literally did though? Just look at what it’s done in the last 3 decades alone.
The movie this short is taken from is nothing but lies.
@@nekocekoBiHMKI appreciate the compliment, sweetheart. Wanna get drinks later?
Ask the russian tanks if the Bradley is any good in a REAL fight.
@@nekocekoBiHMKit has more tank kills than the M1 and is currently fucking up the Russians in Ukraine.
Guys you dont will believe this: if you shot an anti-tank guided missile at a tank, or worst, an IFV it will be destroyed.
Yeah, this movie is a total BS. The real protagonist in this movie was anti tech, and also, if you were ever to fire a TOW AT missile at a fully fueled and armed Bradley IFV, it would explode. The movie is not based on the real story behind Bradley development.
It’s kinda inspired, but mainly it’s a dark comedy making fun off the military industrial complex. Sucks that people take it seriously.
@@caspar508its inspired by a book written by a guy who hate the program
Most of the thing in there is either false or stupid, as the commenter said, hes an anti-tech
@@imreallynoob8311
Yeah the original book’s author thinks that modern jets don’t need any sort of avionics, missiles nor countermeasures like chaff/flares. He’s crazy lol
Aha... as BS as normal official propaganda?
@@imreallynoob8311Good underlying commentary, and art can come from “not the best” of people you know? The commentary is that we do suffer from some level of incompetence, over bloating, profit over quality, and downright corruption in the Military Industrial Complex. The guy writing the book was a part of it too. He didn’t know it was a commentary on himself aswell, but it ended up being so.
Again. Critical analysis isn’t for the weak. Aka don’t take the movie for something of a 1:1 documentary. It is a comedy, touching on REAL issues. In a campy fashion. I think you just don’t understand what a “not documentary” is. Wait till you find out Superman wasn’t about a real guy but rather concepts on human interaction lol.
The person who this this movie is based off of was against having ejector seats in fighter jets
The guy who wrote this book thought the heat leaking at rocket was a waste. Now the javelin saved an entire country. He thought the bradley was garbage and it destroyed more tanks in desert storm than tanks did. He thought the tomcat was a brick and that radar was useless on a fighter to which I can only say lol, lmao even
Ah yes
An Infantry Fighting Vehicle did not survive a fucking TOW Anti-Tank Guided Missile
Great IFV after problems were solved
Even early on it was quite capable. The Bradley performed well in desert storm, and the ODS variants made for desert storm are still kicking ass.
This is just a fictitious movie based on a disgraced attention seeking reformer. Who believes anything that the army did to get test results was cheating. The M2 Bradley was under budget and was loved by the crew's that had to live in them during deployment. Unlike the bmp family, which was dangerous and uncomfortable. Especially the bmp 1, which it autoloader could break or amputate the limbs of guner or commander. Also, being pointless as the crew gun loading was slightly faster than the autoloader. So, the export versions of the bmp 1 were more effective than the home version.
@@colicpizza4168 You guys took this movie seriously?
Just leave it at great IFV...
❤
Just to those who aren’t aware: they’re not saying the Bradley wasn’t going to die to the TOW. They intended for the Bradley to be unloaded, instead it was fully loaded with its military standard ammunition package which caused a dangerous ammunition explosion next to the viewing stands.
It's the best IFV on the planet.
The Bradley's killed more enemy armor than the Abrams did during Gulf war I.
Dont think its the best anymore but yeah its really good
it depends on the environment. Dont think it would do very well in asian countries, thats BMP territory
@@notforrestbono3100Why?
@@AnonD38 its more versatile, amphibious and its mobility is better, which is good for areas with swampy terrain
@@niclink1030Who’s better? 😂😂😂
Would a TOW even fuse at that short of a distance?
I don’t think so
Dunno what the range actually is here, but afaik it's between 100 to 200 meters for a TOW
"Bradley Flying Vehicle" just an observation.
Ukraine says the Bradley is the real MVP of the war, almost on par with glide bombs, but not above drones
Ich denke in dem Film geht es um den Bradley und nicht über den T90😉🤣🤣
Infantry Fighting Vehicle ❌
Bradley Fighting Vehicle ✅
I mean, the Bradley did turn out to actually be a solid vehicle.
To be fair. The movie and the book it’s somewhat based off of is mostly BS
This movie is heavily biased against Bradley
How fortunate!
This movie is called, " The Pentagon Wars ". Isthis too hard to do at the front of the comments section??
Thank you !😊
The comment section is war zone
The logic of the majority of people here is nonexistent. It’s a chemical warhead, lack of armor doesn’t matter since it’s a HEAT missile. If it hits the Bradley and ignites the ammo, then kaboom.
And now it's kicking more ass than the Abrams in Ukraine
91M Gang, where y'all at!?
Trick question.... It's only 1930, so you're still at the Motor pool changing LRU's.
They really decided to choose one of the best tank killer and make a joke about it...
No it’s not a tank killer. That’s what this movie didn’t get. It got missiles so it wouldn’t be totally defenseless when it met a tank. Its purpose is to move soldiers into combat and stay. It’s supposed to have the impact of a tank on infantry but is not heavy or well armed enough to fight a real tank.
@40klegion78 And yet it has killed more tanks than the Abrams..
When you play WT and go with 50% ammo + 1 shell and not 50%
This whole movie has gotten a bit of a stale context since the Bradley really outdid itself in combat, killing even MBTS IN Ukraine.
Incapacitated, not destroyed but sure.
@Nine10spades a mobility kill is a kill...
@@NardoVogt bruh reddit
@@pizzarollking4397No, a mobility kill is literally a kill on a armored vehicle, if it loses effectiveness, it might as well have been dead-?
It is just standard military action report or whatever-
@@FemmFuryeah that’s why kv1’s and German heavy TD’s didn’t work out to well.
The fact that no one understands what’s happening in the video shows the dangerous lack of comprehension skills and no attention being paid at all.
Wow! The Brady Bunch had a lot more action in its episodes than I seem to recall.
Omar Bradley is spinning in his grave with this
The movie and book are total bs. The book was written by an Air Force general who thought that planes shouldn’t have radar. He wasn’t even involved so the Bradley program.
How bro felt shooting a IFV with an anti tank on frontal armour ( side is more thicker but not enough):😈😈😈😈🤘🏿
irl war thunder hit by rocket launcher
Turns out, not even Kornets can really do all that damage to it. The Bradley really did get a bad reputation for no reason.
Kornets and Lancets just blew one to smithereens 2 weeks ago, are we watching the same war? 😂😂
@pierrecoufinn7460 yep, but majority of the videos from both sides show lancets doing fuck all and Kornets being absorbed by its armor.
And again Colonel Hannibal Smith Said: I Like IT, when a plan IS fulfilled.
242 25mm gun. 7.62 coax. 6-8 tow missiles. Brads move in groups of 4-20+. The Bradley is underestimated because Ukraine is making them look useless. They don’t use the right tactics that make brads deadly.
It because they don't have any means to use that "right tactics"
Combined arms rights?
That just impossible for them to apply that tactics.
rien de tel que finir avec un beau feu d'artifice 🎉 😂😂😂
Thats like shooting an anti-tank missile at a m113 of course its going to catastrophically kill a lightly armored vehicle
Average War Thunder experience
Why does his eyes wideen when he says speac
Ignoring every other fault with this movie, simplest thing to do would’ve just been to raise his arms in an “x” formation instead of waving them
was this before or after the "welcome aboard" tattoo?
waths the name of this movie ?
The Pentagon Papers.
Ukrajine Bradley is tank and Abrams is scout car.
Majority of the person who acted in the movie name Down
Periscope ..is here... expecting same action comedy in this movie
The wrath of bgm21
A TOW direct hit at close range???? What did you expect???
Don't Bradleys out-tank T-72s
What's movie name
"pentagon wars" but it is total BS from everything I have seen.
Public Relations is what kept the US War machine going
You can look at the phantom as the largest mig killer, despite it usually killing gen-2 mig-21s and Mig-17s...flown mostly by Israelis...against arabs...who had bare to no training
You may see the OH-6 or its modern counterpart the MH-6 as a beautiful war machine, a light helo...that lost almost all of its units during the Vietnam war.
Ahhhh, that was funny, if only it was true
Name of film
pentagon wars
The Bradley is kind of just overkill, it’s an AFV that doesn’t really carry well, you either take men or take ammo and it’s kinda like, why? At this point it’s more of a recon tank like the Bundeswehr Wiesel
Tell me you don't understand modern combat doctrine without telling me you don't understand modern combat doctrine
Its job: bring troops into battle, and the. Stay and support them. Tanks Job. Support infantry, counter armor and fortifications and inspire fear in the enemy. Any other vehicle is a battle taxi to a certain extent, get them near the battle and run.
It’s designed to do recon and support infantry in combat against infantry and light fortifications which is why it doesn’t carry that many soldiers. It’s not a battle taxi.
Please, tell us more about your brilliant IFV ideas that you drummed up from years of experience on Reddit and War Thunder.
@@karstenshields1694 a “battle taxi” is kind of the point of an AFV
This movie is supposed to be a non-fiction movie and this is a very fictional scene
Hell yeahhhhhh 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
What the name of the movie
Pentagon wars
Damn, diddnt know frazier wasnt chill like that.
I hope people know this a movie POKING FUN at the Brad and not an accurate depiction
Title?
Pentagon Wars
its trash dont watch it
Growing up is laughing at the funny movie ridiculing the Bradley.
Being an adult is realizing the Bradley is one of the most successful armored fighting vehicles in recent times.
A Bradley would survive a hit. It’s a tough vehicle and it’s very effective in Ukraine.
Are you high or something? Yes, Bradley is a fantastic IFV. No, it's not going to survive an anti TANK missile.
@ I know it’s a fucking tow missile. I’m saying that it can survive hits. Also this is the earliest Bradley not a newer one.
What people don’t know is that this was originally intended as an armored troop transport to replace the M113 which was aluminum hulled which might have worked well against small arms fire for Korean and World War II scenarios, but the Vietnam experience proved it no longer fully capable in modern warfare especially against rocket propelled grenades.
With too many hands in the pot, the design ended up getting changed over and over so instead of a troop carrier for 15+ soldiers, it now became a fully turreted Fighting Vehicle that could only carry a maximum of only six fully equipped soldiers sardined in together. Other variants could only carry three scouts.
The constant cramming of more and more missions on what had been simply originally intended as an armored troop carrier led to the “final” redesign where fuel tanks were positioned on the SIDES creating a surefire scenario (pun intended) of instant soldier immolation in the event of an RPG hit. Redesigning the Bradley would have created another delay and additional cost to an already delayed and over-budget program. In an attempt to make the Bradley appear survivable, and to secure quicker approval-flawed design and soldiers lives be damned-the prep crew was instructed to fill the fuel tanks with water before the live fire demonstration of the Bradley’s ability to take hits with “survivable damage”. USAF Col. Burton who was QA’ing the program and who had been overruled by bigger interests and other apparatchik in the DOD pleaded with the prep crew not to follow those instructions but to fill the fuel tanks with what they were meant to be filled with-FUEL. And so they did. The result was a real world scenario of a Bradley fireball vulnerability. This led to another delay in the program as now the Bradley design had to be fixed, and the Colonel was immediately transferred out of the program to a desk job somewhere but he refused, and instead took the road to retirement. He basically lost his job. This caused a Congressional Inquiry into the malfeasance of the Bradley’s flawed design, and while a lot got swept under the rug of hand wringing and some acknowledgement of Colonel Burton’s points, the end result was that the Bradley finally became SURVIVABLE and quite capable, losses in the battlefields of Iraq and Ukraine notwithstanding. It turned out pretty well and thousands of soldiers lives were saved from a flawed design, and battles were won. Thanks to Col. Burton’s insistence on a survivable and better design sooner rather than later, and the Ballistics Research Laboratory’s quicker compliance installing the those designs more quickly.
Yes, it meant the end of the Colonel’s career, but it saved American lives and secured battlefield victories.
The Bradley was designed in an infantry support role not as a dedicated troop transport. The Bradley also had things like water filled gas tanks and sand for ammo during missile tests so that the designers could study the shrapnel patterns and what gets penetrated and how much damage is done. Burton also had very little to do with the actual design process and when he got pissy that the military did something he didn’t like he retired and wrote a book with clear bias towards his beliefs about how the military was wrong and he was right. Stop believing the words of reformers who barely had a hand in the design process. The Bradley is one of the greatest armored vehicles in the world.
Movie name?
Schindler's list
Whoever made this movie are clueless
And yet that sh*t saves lives even while be8ng destroyed and burned.
What movie?
Hi *John Boyd*
Still fired from the military for being just stupid?
What movie is this
Pentagon Wars, it's a dark comedy which is supposed to shows how the M3 Bradley IFV is developed, but this is a misinformation by the author, who's part of the "Reformers", I suggest watch the video by Spookston and LazerPig
Well, and now the bradley is the most popular vehicle in Ukraine for fighting the ruzzians
Esa es la musica de cronica
Everyone laugh, till you are russian and and you see this lil guy poping 30 mike on your buddies...
bradley to badly
Kornet not used, lore inaccurate
And the bradley has more kills than Abrams. That AF bird colonel is full of Shtt
Damn...the US best modern IFV and the symbol of Ukraine army. It very iconic that Russian make bounty for they soldier who hunt down it or a Leopard since the first time both appear in front.
It’s fine, the book the series is based on lies a lot
They will put a reward on any equipment
This movie is based on a book that author of tought that modern jets should be tanky and with just cannons, no radars, no modern avionics, no ejecton seats, missiles, counter measures etc.. He also tought that M113 were the best vehicles in the world
@@Krzaczor-ym9gd
Wasn't the M113 some other guy?
@@marseldagistani1989 No , he wrote the book that was the inspiration for this movie
I have to see this movie
Bradley in Ucrain
So yeah that never happened
This movie is b.s its like saying a pair of scissors can't cut because its not a knife.
I want everyone in the commsnt sextion to realized we stopped producing these in the 90s cause bradleys were shit
Alr so you are just stupid
200 more ordered in 2024. The real question is what do you think of BMP’s. Because this is our version and it has out performed almost every other IFV out there. Minus certain countries with different needs like Israel’s versions.
You could’ve just looked up when the different generations started production instead of spreading misinformation 🤷♂️ lol
This movie was 🏳️🌈🇮🇱 propaganda. Bradley has been turnint Eastern bloq equipment into slag for 3 decades.
Why should that feature defend special homosexual rights ?
Illegal mexicans aren't driving them !
En Ucrania a derrotado incluso tanques T 90 de los perros Rusos.
Bushmaster Chain guns 25mm won't be able to penetrate the front armor of any tank lmao
@@DmitryYazov519yeah, but it is able to
- blind the tank
-mobility kill it
- destroy the turret drive
The Bradley did all of this. The t-90 was reduced to scrap. A fpv drone just finished the job.
@@DmitryYazov519 yea but they will rip up everything that isn’t inside, also they frontally can, given you shoot the same spot over and over, warthunder dosnt model that
Bradley just got fucked up 😂😂😂
Thats not a bradley
It is
The Bradley is 50 year old technology, and based on a chassis from 1954. Today, the Bradley is "drone food".
Lol not even remotely the same chassis and drones suck at taking out bradlies they take out T92s much easier since their ammo blows their top off. It's land mines doing the real work in this war.
You're right, by God! We should just abandon all armor and mobility and go back to trench warfare. After all, going out into battle makes you "drone food."
Probably the shittiest movie in history.
Movie is Pentagon wars. So alot of people don't understand why so they just spam "it's not a tank" comments
The context is that the officer handling the bradley test notices that they've been faking test results by giving the vehicle empty cans and sand instead of the real thing. He wanted a real result so he ordered the men to load it with real ammunition and fuel.
He wanted to help reduce the catastrophic effect by redesigning it or letting it go but the commanding officer said the vehicle is perfect already... Until they witnessed this, a real test.
The reason for all of what you described and the flame retardant coating inside, is to see exactly what is damaged/destroyed when the missile hits without risk of burning up your evidence. That way you know what to isolate, what to up armor, and where the most risk to the troops are inside the vehicle.
What do you learn when your test subject is just destroyed? What results can you draw from a burned wreck? That an IFV will be destroyed by an AT munition? The entire military already knew that.
The protagonist (the writer of the book this movie was based on) was the only one oblivious to this fact and had a project that was competing for funding with the Bradley... which goes a little way to explain the portrayal of the Army brass here.
@supercoolguy43 to answer your second paragraph, it is for deciding what should be the standard ammunition capacity instead of shoving the whole thing full of ammunition and sending it to battle. At the time, Bradley has been tested Couple of times with sand, but it still doesn't simulate the size of damage. Doesn't show how much is too much, and how much is survivable.
Glad things worked out for bradley tho, but that door is still a trap when the thing gets hit
@@zde1532 ANY meaningful amount of ammunition exploding inside ANY armoured vehicle is going to reduce the crew to mincemeat baked onto the walls of the fighting compartment; that's exactly why the Abrams has blow-out panels over the 120mm locker, to vent that explosion OUTSIDE the crew spaces.
In real life, the Colonel's proposed tests were deliberately unrealistic and knowingly aimed at killing the Bradley project in favour of something that would be cheaper, less capable, and produced in larger numbers, which would inevitably result in that force suffering MORE casualties in a shooting war than if they'd had Bradleys. At best, it was a callous willingness to 'accept' losses that using a more capable system would prevent; of course, there was probably also a strong element of trying to screw over the Army for the sake of getting more funding for the Air Force.
He spent billions on tests they were never designed to pass. How many times do you need to shoot a Honda with a tomahawk missile to realize maybe the Honda was not ment to be able to do that.
@40klegion78 atleast 30 times
Nope
69
Yep that's a Bradley
Junk
according to whom?
@@maddslothii2532keyboard warriors