My father was a driver in an M2 Bradly stationed in then-West Germany, he said that his version did not have a 6mm steel plate in-between the driving area and the engine, he suffered pretty extreme hearing loss and has hearing aids. He said it was fun to drive, and they could race and beat abrams units. He also said HE was fun to fire. Edit: ayo this doin numbers
Heh, my dad worked on the transmission design and manufacture of the Bradley in the early 80s. He was a Navy vet, but I think he was more proud of that than of serving in the Navy. The Bradley did have significant transmission issues in its early variants. I never served in the military, but I'm also proud to have worked in industry that provided major components of almost anything that used a GE, Rolls, or P&W jet engine. Maybe I don't have a uniform or medals, but I'm happy to have been able to contribute in that way.
@@YukarisGearReviews i think its clear that he didn't meant that, he meant that it didn't had the reinforcement plate, obviously you need the fire wall, but thats like a 2mm plate
My dad commanded a M3A3 in Iraq. He said when he was training, he had AP loaded in the dual feed, and there was a coyote out on the training zone. He ordered his gunner to fire the round at the coyote. The coyote became pieces of two.
Back when I was still a mech infantryman, I told people that if you thought the Brad was a tank, you would die. Instead, think of it as the world’s fastest and best machine gun nest.
As cool as the Bradley is I can't help but think to a degree "That just sounds like an MRAP with extra steps". I mean, it's got two AT missiles, better armor and can carry six troops but if you swapped out the treads for wheels and made it just *slightly* lighter I think I would probably have problems telling the difference.
That is also able of taking out most tanks it might come across, of course not in the way that a typical tank would but just as capable of doing so when the situation called for it
I want to bring up Zach Hazard’s Bradley story, if a vehicle can be hit with 3 IEDs, have all of its crew bail leaving just an 18 year old with a concussion and STILL be operable that’s something to write home about
I remember hearing that story but it makes my blood boil to think that his platoon/squad just left him there to rot. What part of "Never leave a man behind" wasn't in the memo?
@@Gamerguy826to be fair lol... its hard to keep track of shit when your hit with that many explosives. But yea dick move if they knew that the dude was there and just left him
@@justsomemustachewithoutaguy- Don't worry, the ones who left him got court martialed to hell and back. Source: Comment on MGR/Combat Vetetan Reacts to Bradley/Gloves. Someone there posted that it became big enough to warrant full dishonorable discharges and jail time.
I would like to note here that the "official" seating capacity of the Bradley is six, but this has been increased to 7 with the M2A2 ODS and on, and, unofficially, an eighth man in a more... unauthorized seating configuration.
Please say this means either the little guy of the unit is sitting on someone's lap or is laying across their laps. If it is more sus than that I will have to officially say the Grunts need to lay off the Squids for being prone to that sort of behavior.
I’ve done a three man crew, guy in the AG’s seat behind the driver, seven guys in the back, and another dismount packed between the TC and gunner in the turret. Miserable.
The Bradley gets way to much hate for no real reason, Lazerpig did quite a good video on it and the whole reformist movement, still find it funny how people claimed the Bradley was bad because it didn't have enough armor when it wasn't supposed to be a tank it's supposed to drop troops off and provide support it doesn't have a need for large amounts of armor for it's role.
I'd argue it's a choice that's slowly starting to be reversed with the introduction of heavy IFV's like the PUMA or the Lynx, not to say the lack of armour on the bradley was inexcuseable, it had a lot more going for it than the bmp.
To be fair, for an IFV, it seemed to have been quite expensive nonetheless... In opposition to the BMP-1 that is. Too complicated design for too simple of a job.
@@Алекса́ндрФёдоровичКе́ренс-ы3н Being a universal IFV is not a simple job, you are looking at something that need to carry infantry safely and pack a punch. The Bradley has two ready TOW missiles. The BMP1 and further itinerstions have like null armour on the turret and chasis, only having slight protection in front because of the ludicrous slope. Even carrying troops is complex, packing +10 guys on a battlefield is risky
@@Алекса́ндрФёдоровичКе́ренс-ы3н IFV isn't a simple job. Simple would be an APC. BMP-1 is cheaper but worse, meant to be built and used in larger numbers
I loved our Bradleys. All kinds of things broke or bit ya all the time but those are completely worth dealing with. Just the bushmaster and optics paid for all the trouble let alone being able to squish crash through or obliterate with firepower anything in our way. It goes fast, doesn't immediately disintegrate when hit like a truck, holds everything you need and scared the piss outta bad guys when the 25 opened up
@@lrcolville1 He wasn't lying. They're absolutely terrible to work in. Add to that it has very little protection and firepower and in a lot of cases less mobility than Bradley's and I question why we even had them. People say the MGS was garbage, but to us that was the *good* stryker.
@@92HazelMocha I did 4 years on Strykers and 2 on Bradley's so far. The maintenance on a Stryker is way easier the 25 is cool to shoot but I hate maintaining it.
I was a gunner for a little while on the Bradley. It's a pretty reliable system if your driver and gunner know what they're doing. Almost every issue with the gun is operator induced. At first I thought that was BS. Until I got pretty good with it and realized how true it was. My gun ran nearly flawless while other crews wanted to use my track. I didn't let them cause they broke theirs and knew they'd break mine.
@@AH-64Delta it's usually just people not understanding how to load or operate the gun because they're not trained on it. A lot of times it's because nee guys show up, only have experience as a dismount, and then get put into a gunner position with nothing but simulator training. Then they go shoot their first gunnery, and realize they don't actually know how to operate the gun.
My Tank Bravo 1-3 was a champ. Gun droopage and had the oldest power-packed of the battalion. As long you did your PMCS, that tank was an absolute tac driver, and started everytime
Except for the fact that the BMP-3 is still barely used, with variants of the BMP-2 still being the main line IFV in the Russian army. Meanwhile, the Bradley is quite literally the only IFV the US uses
@@disturbedwaffle327 Yeah, but what's the point of talking about a difficult development cycle for something which either isn't used or is barely used?
Bradley mechanic veteran here. I served for 15 yrs and did 3 tours in Iraq. The first two tours being the first two rotations in Iraq. The Bradley's overall is a reliable vehicle. BUT it did suffer initially during the first couple of months in theater. Especially once the insurgency kicked off. The reason it suffered was due to our tracks sitting for long periods of time. Basically we saw allot of power train issues at the beginning due to what is referred to as Dry Rot. Oil lines. Gaskets. and other problems commonly seen in vehicles that have sat idle for long periods of time. And yes my unit did training before we deployed and yes we did train with our own vehicles. But the thing is normal field training and gunneries don't really stretch the legs of these vehicles. So many of these issues remained hidden until we were in Iraq and our Brad's are now doing 24 operations with crews rotating in and out aka hot seating. That's when we saw the problems show up. After about two months with the first being the worst by far. Most of the stuff that was going to break had already done so. After that our Brads ran like champs. It went from so hectic trying to keep tracks running that I didn't see my bunk for 3 whole days and ate all of my meals and slept on the Brads I was working on. To days and weeks of just chilling and doing normal maintenance stuff. The same situations happened for the Abrams guys on my team as well. They saw basically the same stuff we did at the beginning. And later they were back to normal ops. My 2nd tour with the Bradley's is where I learned how good and bad they are. Out of the 13 Brads the 101st ABN 1/32 Cav were given out of theater Pre-po stocks. 11 were coded out for IED damage. I recovered nearly all of them but 1. The thing about the Brads is that once they catch on fire. They just melt and turn into aluminum goo. I still got my pics of the ones I recovered that were still burning as I towed them back. You didn't sit around waiting for them to stop or else you gave the insurgents extra time to plan hits on you. Recovery vehicles were targets definitely. Out of the 11 Brads struck by IEDs and destroyed. Only 1 soldier died and it was due to burns suffered from a ruptured fuel cell. My biggest complaint about the Bradley is that it has internal fuel tanks. Honestly the fuel tanks were the crews biggest threat after an IED strike. I just hope that the next vehicle that's made has external fuel cells. External fuel cells may be vulnerable to combat damage. But they are also FAR cheaper to replace than a full vehicle. And pose far less risk to the crews of the vehicle than internal tanks do. But overall as a weapons platform the Bradley was very deadly to our enemies and reliable and easily maintained. Especially if your maintenance guys and vehicle crews are on the same page and do their vehicle maintenance.
Engineer’s perspective: External fuel tanks being hit would be mission-kill. Sadly, Extremely unpractical, given “bang for buck” limitations of army equipment ^^ ❤
The Bradley performs remarkably well given all of its design compromises and troubled early development and birthing, and has the combat record to back it up. One correction: on swimming, the M2A2/M3A2 were still required to swim and had the swim barrier; the Army only stopped swimming them when a Safety of Use Message was issued in 1995. The A3 variants were built without swim barriers finally, but the actual requirement to swim (along with the requirement for firing ports) was not formally rescinded until 2011.
Loves this video like the other informational videos . I was a M3A3 driver, gunner , and dismount 1-7 cav. I loved the Bradley, the IBAS was a great system when you zeroed it properly. The 25mm bushmaster cannon sounds still resonate and was fun learning how to dismantle + reassemble it. Recently I found out the Bradley had a Swim kit 😂. Thanks again for these types of videos . I really really enjoyed this one.
When I reclassed to cavalry scout in the late 90s, the Army was doing a lot of comparisons between the Bradley, M113A3, and HMMWV for scouting, especially for light divisions and National Guard. By that time we had figured out Bradley tactics, and it worked well as long as all of the actual reconnaissance was done by dismounts and the track was kept as a battle taxi and light tank reaction force about 2km behind the dismounts. It didn't make for very fast recon, since the vehicles were too loud to bring near anything you haven't already scouted, but it was effective. There are some big advantages to having something armed and armored as a nearby reserve. Pure recon is faster with HMMWVs because they are much quieter, especially their doors as compared to the ramps of a Bradley or 113. You do not want your enemy to hear you getting out of a vehicle 1200m away. Distant engine sounds might be your own supply trucks, but the sound of ramps dropping means you need to be on alert. Because humvees are quieter, instead of dismounting a dozen scouts and having them out on foot all day, a HMMWV scout platoon mostly rides, but has 2-3 scouts constantly running or crawling ahead (with those 2-3 switching out with others throughout the day). The humvees will effectively move by bounds with their dismounts, keeping the trucks within 500m or a single terrain feature. Trucks aren't very good fire support, but they are close by and can respond in seconds instead of minutes. Tracks end up effectively moving at a walking pace since they need to stay well-behind their dismounts, but HMMWVs mostly do recon at a running pace. It's the light tank aspects of the Bradley that make it competitive though. On contact with the enemy, HMMWV scouts mostly have to lay down suppressive fire, mount up and flee, but Bradley scouts effectively have light tanks supporting them. The real deciding factor for why most scout platoons are in HMMWVs is that Bradleys can't fly on a C-130, so they can't support light brigades. The only real complaint I ever had with the Bradley is that operator-level maintenance on it requires both metric and SAE wrenches, and way to many of them. The same level of maintenance on an M1 mostly takes 2 wrenches (15mm and 30mm), and you can do most operator-level maintenance on a HMMWV with a multi-tool. It's not that big a flaw, really. The Stryker Dragoon is probably the all-around best recon vehicle the US Army has. It can do most of what the Bradley does well, while also being quiet enough to use close to the enemy like the HMMWV.
I love the lav 3 but man it had problems. In Afghanistan it sometime flipped over on rough terrain and it’s 25mm chain gun obviously couldn’t penatrate the sometimes meters thick walls of the grape drying huts used as bunkers by the taliban. I think most of its problems were as result of doctrine and lack though. Since the Canadian government had gotten rid of most of its tanks, helicopters, and didn’t send any jets to Kandahar, instead having to ask for air support from other countries. Still if had a choice of wether to be in a lav 3 or a hummvee I’d take the lav any day.
I always have the feeling people jump on bandwagons to criticize IFVs very fast anyway. Same with the Puma which was also heavily criticized by people, who were not even aware of it's role and to which system it compares. As far as I am aware the Bradley was, especially for it's time, a very decent IFV. It seemed to be the natural fit for US doctrine and I'd say it's track record isn't the worst. Of course with the introduction of newer systems like our Puma or the Lynx, KF-21, Kurganets-25 etc. it seems less impressive on paper, but it's still a very solid IFV to this day and can more than hold its own against contemporary IFVs from the eastern bloc in terms of infantry support.
We've been wanting to replace it for a while since it is at this point 50 year old tech, but the thing about replacing the USA fleet is the USA fleet is huge. So when you replace it, you got to do it right the first time because you are going to be building thousands of them. Prior attempts have demonstrated that the technology we wanted at the time wasn't yet ready for the real world. In the meantime, the only people who have even a marginally better IFV are allies, and you can always upgrade the electronics pretty cheaply to keep it relevant on a modern battlefield. I suspect that once APS gets mature we'll see the US revisit replacing it's AFV fleet. It's pretty obvious modern AFV's are going to need 360 dome protection against weapon systems like loitering munitions, top-attack ATGMs, and guided mortar rounds. But exactly what that system will look like - energy weapons, 40mm grenade launcher, 30mm autocannon, micro-sized SAGMs - is still being decided and worked on. I suspect in 10-20 years we'll see a new platform with space provided for a multipurpose weapon system that can be swapped out for whatever future APS turns out to work best.
Good coverage of the topic. It would be nice if you consider doing a follow-on video going into detail on the differences between the Cavalry and IFV versions & the reasons for those differences. Possibly touching on the M6 Linebacker. Also, to be fair, there were variants of the M113 that had more firepower than you would expect to find in a mere "battle taxi."
I loved and hated the bradley, never had an issue with the bushmaster only because I was careful with PMC. The heater rarely worked either it was hotter than hell or you better cuddle up with your buddy. Cramped in the back, driver hit a ditch and I woke up in my squad leaders lap. But man the thing kept breaking down with random things but what you said about the radiator is true that thing is absolute garbage. I thought it was hilarious when i told the mechanics that the radiator is messed up and they ignored my warning as they tried to get it onto the train carts the radiator blew. Weird...it's like I have been complaining about that for weeks.
You'd think they'd at least do a quick test to see if your complaints were founded. But I'm a civilian and all I know is shit is different in the military 🪖 *shrug*
An idea for a video I had was a list of armored vehicles that had the biggest impact on how armored warfare was fought and/or caused a change in direction when it comes to designs. The BMP-1 is a great example as it caused the West to design counterparts. The IS-3 would be another. I'm sure there are tons of known, but also more obscure examples out there.
Thats not quite true, it was actually germans who introduced the first vehicle of this role, something like 6-8 years before the BMP. The first "modern" IFV would be the german Schützenpanzer Lang-30. Not a good vehicle, but it was the first one. Relied to a big degree on WW2 experience with Panzergrenadiers (german mechanized infantry).
I'm a dismount and a jump gunner for the brads. In my experience working with the m2a2 models, the biggest flaw in my opinion is the dismount capacity. There's unaffordable time that is taken up by assembling with your scattered dismounted element after a dp since they can only fill 6 out of the 9 squad personal. If these new brad models come through, then there will be a lot of time, and eventually lives saved. Note: To compensate for that, each Bradley section will often have an assault squad with an MG attachment. Majority of the time, it works pretty well. However, that means its only 2 dismounted Squads w/ MG per platoon.
@@Apnah13idk man, a design originating in 1963 being a major contributor to beating a “modern” t-90, and likely having its crew surviving when damaged doesn’t seem like a joke to me.
@@TonyChan-eh3nz It was a one time event in the entire two year war and since that the bradleys have just been performing the same hit by a FPV and destroyed
I watched Pentagon Wars, then I read the book. At first, and even though I had been on Bradleys for a long time at that point, I believed that bullshit, but then I went to Bradley Master Gunner school and realized that guys like James Burton and that Black Tail turd are just full of shit. The Bradley is a great combat platform. One of the things I love about it is how incredibly resilient it is, and even in a complete power loss it is still capable of putting up a fight. It's like the machine wants to fight more than the soldiers using it, and you can't ask for a better combat vehicle than that.
I was Platoon Leader for the first 6 M3 CFVs ever built back in the '80s. They were maintenance hogs, mainly wiring issues, but they weren't horrible as AFVs. Most maintenance problems were the result of a system that wasn't prepared for that level of complexity, and in my 15 months as PL, we had fixed almost all of them. Vehicle height is the most overrated issue, as it is extremely easy to assume hull or even turret defilade with a Bradley. The BMP is horrible to actually fight from due to it's small size and lack of ergonomics.
All that talk about APC‘s and IFV‘s and me, a former Austrian infantry man, is thinking: wait, you guys have armored vehicles? Seriously, if we drove, we had trucks or small „Pinzgauer“. Most of the time we were on foot, partially for training but also because we had too few vehicles, let alone armored ones (the politicians thought we didn’t need those since wars are a thing of the past, turned out to be totally wrong)
I was an army brat coming up around the time of the gulf war, I remember several soldiers giving this vehicle a lot of praise. Mostly comfort and all the useful equipment in it.
An IFV isn't supposed to be a light tank, it's a beefed up armored car capable of punching up above it's weight class, and it's fills a vital modern battlefield role.
Despite all the positive praise in the comments, I believe Phly made a collab video on the Bradley in which a former crew member expressed his fair criticism. I don't think it's accurate to say that the hate for the Bradley is "undue". It's a back and forth, there's always going to be things people like and dislike. Ofc I know the point of this was to highlight its actual usefulness in combat, which is often disregarded when discussing the Bradley.
good friend of mine served in a bradley for his entire deployment and while he certainly had complaints they overall feel that vehicle saved their life a number of times in both irag and felucia. they had been hit with IEDs more than once that the bradley saved their ass and allowed them to keep fighting. They have a great deal most complaints about the humvee. LOL
You should make a video of the Strf90 or the CV90 family as a whole. It's an IFV that I 100% unbiasedly as a Swede find very interesting especially now with the MK4 version and especially especially the one with the 50mm autocannon...
Particularly well-spoken closing statement. Very well captures the fact that a lot of the time, a problem is with the youth of the concept rather than the design.
I think US Army is making a big mistake limiting the crew and dismount requirements for OMFV to only 2 crew and 6 dismounts. Most of competitors can accommodate up to 3 crew and dismounts (possibly even 3+9 configuration) like Lynx KF-41, CV-90 Mk IV, and Hanwha AS-21. The 3rd crew members can control UAV or UGV to support the infantry meanwhile drivers will focus on driving and the gunner will use it's weapon.
Pretty levelheaded analysis, and accurate IMO. In my experience, every maintainer that I met that had to work on it loathed it. meanwhile folks that got to be crew for it, whether infantry or cav, seemed to love the thing to a near religious extent, except for when they had to PMCS it. Also, thing probably started the death before dismount memes in the infantry and armor branches too lol. So the part about some officers disliking it for giving crews and squads bad habits in terms of TTPs is probably still an ongoing, but relatively minor, issue that usually gets beat out of junior leaders (NCO and commissioned alike) whenever its their unit's turn to go in for a TC rotation or if they have vigilant BN leadership. Do note, that as the Spookston himself clarifies, this isn't really a Bradley issue, its more of an IFV issue. Plenty of cases of BMP and BTR crews in UKR currently getting their shit kicked in for exercising this habit in combat.
Only experience riding in an M2, tagging along with some infantry. Not the best ride, but fine. On the way back, hydraulics failed for the ramp. Had to drag it bag to base on the asphalt sparking the whole time. The breeze made for a better ride even if the locals seemed concerned about.
>US wanted a battle taxi that could support from a distance >Bradley is a battle taxi that can support from a distance Like, it did what it was designed to, sure some tradeoffs here and there. But it literally isn't a Marder and was never intended for the role the way heavier German IFVs fulfilled.
Id personally love to see a video about the AMX-10RC, a french tank destroyer/scout tank.. commentary could also be some information about french late cold war tanks
you mean the one where they already knew what would happen so they didnt want to blow up an expensive prototype and because of that the circus of reformers screams corruption every 2 seconds
Shooting a IFV with AT weapons? Weapons designed to kill MBTs. Yeah bits do fly far but in desert storm M2/M3 did defeat tanks not by tanking shots rather by shooting first
I'm wondering how a video on the Marder (the IFV) would look like, how it performed, did it come to being from the Schutzenpanzer the US was so interested in
Here's an interesting thoughts video idea: what WWII tanks do you think could potentially hold it's own today if given the proper tools (IR, computer tracking, laser rangefinder, etc). Changing nothing in terms of it's outside features, but moreso the inside mechanisms
well, if you'd upgrade the engine and gave them a better gun' I think german late war projects like Tiger, Tiger II and Panther would be a lot more interesting
@@timkey_4542 Fix the transmissions and put more reliable engines, in first, and then think about adding more weight to already underpowered vehicles IMO. The lifespans may be extended with 10yrs at the most probably
None at all. German designs would be worse in every way, but none of these vehicles have the survivability (armor or post-pen) to live on a modern battlefield.
You forget that the M2 has only 25mm of frontal Armor the BMP-1 has a 76mm Canon witch means that one shot can destroy the M2 also the TOW Missile only has a 3km max range so if a friendly tank is not covering or escorting an M2 Bradley it's vulnerable to any tank
That’s why it’s always working with tanks and other Bradley’s and airsupport and artillery too not to mention there’s not one tank that can take a TOW missile to the face and live so it’s a trade off and the TOW outranges most Tank guns and only downsides are bad firing over water or in a forest or jungle but will still have its 30 soon 50 mm gun
But isn't that M2 was built for? The requirements where to make a vehicle that can work with tanks and infantry, be able to take 14.5 to front and sides and have TOW missiles to support tanks? BMP1 can take out a Bradley, but the Bradley can take out a BMP1, it can also take out tanks, proven too. And with it's mission role, it's gonna be covered by infantry and tanks wherever it goes.
M3s are a support vehicle with it's own infantry, the main job of the Bradley is to support its counterpart the M60 (now retired) amd the M1 Abrams with mounted Infantry, it has TOW-2s to counter tanks such as the T-64, 72, 80, 62, and 54/55 tanks it's not built to fight tanks head on.
If you want to do one of these on the warrior i archived some MoD documents from around it's adoption a while ago which had some enlightening information about the army's opinion of it
I've spoken with a few Bradley crewmembers over the years and I think the one consistent complaint they have is that they hit their head a lot on various shit.
Re watching everything about how terrible the Chadley is is confusing, ever since it’s rather impressive use in Ukraine. You know, surviving a shot from a T72 and the “incident” with the T90M.
Nothing is impressive about surviving a HE-FRAG and the T-90M incident doesn’t mean anything , as it’s turret was disabled by FPV munitions not the Bradley
It wasn't. It was probably the best IFV in the world in its heyday, and as has been demonstrated in Ukraine, it's still a nightmare in the hands of a good crew nearly 40 years later.
Drove the M113,both the internal and external fuel tank models. (M113,M113 A2?) They also got more and more shockes also. 42 miles a hour is on the decals as recommended rated top speed. Can get those things going 55 or better. Downhill, tailwind and full sails as the boys say!! 😂🤣 After awhile though, your arms get pretty sore, especially when you have both hands on one tiller bar just keeping her going in a straight line on the highway!! 🇨🇦
@@cole3467 because combat isn't as glamorous or interesting as video games and movies make it out to be. It's literally just waiting for weeks or months and then you take contact but it's just three rounds that got fired over your head and then nothing happens again for weeks.
I served on and taught the M3. When you consider what it was replacing the M113 well you cant say anything bad about it. Bushmaster is a badass weapon. We had no break down issues on them than anything else that I can remember.
I was mech infantry. We hated the Bradley in every aspect with the exception of the heater in the winter. I’ve served as a driver and gunner on one over the course of about 4 out of my 6 and a half years. I despised it whole heartedly. It’s stupid loud, the wall between myself and the engine would get so hot I’d heat my MRE’s by setting it against it on the gear shift, which really blows in the summertime in the desert while being forced to wear MOPP gear. Also ridiculously cramped if you’re average size or above, for the gunner especially over a certain length of time.
I'm non-combat personnel serving in a Scout unit primarily made up of Bradleys. As much as people like to complain about the classical Bradley flaws, the only real issues with the vehicle's design are the inevitable outcomes of aging. Everyone imagines what a platform designed in the 2010s could do in place of the Bradley, but that's not a valid criticism of the Bradley itself.
I’m not sure if you’ve done a video on it before but maybe consider making a somewhat similar vid on the British Warrior 👀. I’ve recently been having lots of fun with it in war thunder, even bringing it into 11.0
Coming out from the military from 3abct the Bradley has decreased quiet a bit since than a lot of my friends who were gunners drivers for the Bradley have a lot of gun engine transmission issues and unfortunately a lot of the parts we do get are old refurbished parts
I understand things are getting older and shit. But keep it till a replacement is warranted. The russian Universal Armata platform that made the T-15 HIFV, is something next gen SHOULD look into. the US needs both a light and heavy IFV category. Light can still mean wheeled vehicles. But whats up with the marines and its IFVs? It has THREE IFVs. The LAV-25. The Stryker IFV. And AAV-7. The Marines still dont have an idea for what to do with Tanks nether. The army is looking at the Griffin 120, 105, and 50mm. Why isnt the marines?
Because the Marines are getting rid of their tanks, they've basically dissolved their tank corps, probably because they're expecting to do more amphibious and island fighting soon.
@@LynnetteJJW exactly, the Marines are looking for lighter platforms to complement amphibious attacks, which the Abrams was too heavy to be a satisfactory option.
The Bradley was always my favorite tank. Dunno why. The Abrams was cool, yeah, but I think it was the autocannon and the TOW missile pack. Also, it could carry people. But, then again, I'm a Navy man. I don't know shit about ditch digging.
Do a video discussing the state of top tier ground rb and how it has shifted over time from a German bias to a Russian bias in a sense. Meaning from a focus on German vehicles being added to a Russian one. This isn't to say Germany still doesn't get fancy new toys, like the PUMA IFV, but compared to Russia they're falling behind in terms of favor. Obviously this is money but I'd love to see a deep dive discussing how it changed, when, why, and what the future looks like for the game.
My brother-in-law was in the U.S. Marine Corps. He said that most American weapons, vehicles and equipment are trash... until they're compared to what soldiers from other armies have to use. For some context, he served in Cuba, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines.
The stupidest argument I see about the Bradley is the whole “it can’t fight tanks like a tank can” thing. Yeah of course it can’t. That’s why we still have tanks…
I don't think of the Brad as bad vic, but as commo, this thing was a pain to work on. Shit is always not working and BAE didn't like giving up NSN's for repair parts. I also wish crews did commo checks weekly instead of the day of gunnery, be real nice.
So I have an interesting idea for a video. It would be interesting to do a video about how you would bring back the Stuart light tanks for modern use in the scouting and supporting Infantry rolls like it originally was. Like how would you modernize it what changes to the core design and ect. It would be sorta like the Sherman vid but about the Stuart tanks.
Can I also point out that it’s stigma could also stem from when ever you stayed near one in MW2 [old version] for more than 10 seconds it got hit with every possible RPG.
no dumb rookie. Real life things are NOT assessed from your dumb rookie game, especially when they were built and proven sturdy,reliable and surviving - long ago earlier that bullshyt game even started in your head... also with your head development itself 😞
I think one of the reasons people are dislike the Bradley is because they thought it *originally* was designed for being an APC rather than IFV, and if they were told it was designed to be an IFV from the ground up that whould change things
You can watch my video on what Pentagon Wars got wrong here: ruclips.net/video/gmuVYVREGgE/видео.html
The morbius sweep
Since you did BMP and Bradley you should also do a video on Marder IFV
Do a video about the isu 152
@@esanahka9284 Don't forget the warrior
talk about the Penhard Crab in a vid if you can, would be cool in wt or a vehicle in general
My father was a driver in an M2 Bradly stationed in then-West Germany, he said that his version did not have a 6mm steel plate in-between the driving area and the engine, he suffered pretty extreme hearing loss and has hearing aids. He said it was fun to drive, and they could race and beat abrams units. He also said HE was fun to fire.
Edit: ayo this doin numbers
you mean your dad's bradley straight up did not come from the factory with a firewall?
Heh, my dad worked on the transmission design and manufacture of the Bradley in the early 80s. He was a Navy vet, but I think he was more proud of that than of serving in the Navy. The Bradley did have significant transmission issues in its early variants. I never served in the military, but I'm also proud to have worked in industry that provided major components of almost anything that used a GE, Rolls, or P&W jet engine. Maybe I don't have a uniform or medals, but I'm happy to have been able to contribute in that way.
@@YukarisGearReviews i think its clear that he didn't meant that, he meant that it didn't had the reinforcement plate, obviously you need the fire wall, but thats like a 2mm plate
My dad commanded a M3A3 in Iraq. He said when he was training, he had AP loaded in the dual feed, and there was a coyote out on the training zone. He ordered his gunner to fire the round at the coyote. The coyote became pieces of two.
@@Genuinespaceman That seems unnecessary.
Back when I was still a mech infantryman, I told people that if you thought the Brad was a tank, you would die. Instead, think of it as the world’s fastest and best machine gun nest.
that’s honestly the greatest analogy for an IFV I’ve ever heard.
As cool as the Bradley is I can't help but think to a degree "That just sounds like an MRAP with extra steps". I mean, it's got two AT missiles, better armor and can carry six troops but if you swapped out the treads for wheels and made it just *slightly* lighter I think I would probably have problems telling the difference.
@@Gamerguy826 no
@@HavelTheCock no what?
That is also able of taking out most tanks it might come across, of course not in the way that a typical tank would but just as capable of doing so when the situation called for it
I want to bring up Zach Hazard’s Bradley story, if a vehicle can be hit with 3 IEDs, have all of its crew bail leaving just an 18 year old with a concussion and STILL be operable that’s something to write home about
I remember hearing that story but it makes my blood boil to think that his platoon/squad just left him there to rot. What part of "Never leave a man behind" wasn't in the memo?
@@Gamerguy826to be fair lol... its hard to keep track of shit when your hit with that many explosives. But yea dick move if they knew that the dude was there and just left him
@@justsomemustachewithoutaguy- if he was worth taking, they would have taken him
@@Gamerguy826 poor guy. Nightmare stuff
@@justsomemustachewithoutaguy- Don't worry, the ones who left him got court martialed to hell and back. Source: Comment on MGR/Combat Vetetan Reacts to Bradley/Gloves. Someone there posted that it became big enough to warrant full dishonorable discharges and jail time.
I would like to note here that the "official" seating capacity of the Bradley is six, but this has been increased to 7 with the M2A2 ODS and on, and, unofficially, an eighth man in a more... unauthorized seating configuration.
Please say this means either the little guy of the unit is sitting on someone's lap or is laying across their laps. If it is more sus than that I will have to officially say the Grunts need to lay off the Squids for being prone to that sort of behavior.
@@Jeremiah90526 Look up "the hole".
It's basically sitting next to the engine compartment, behind the driver.
@@YukarisGearReviews So not as fun, but still requiring the little guy to do it, because there is no way in hell a mongoloid is fitting there.
I’ve done a three man crew, guy in the AG’s seat behind the driver, seven guys in the back, and another dismount packed between the TC and gunner in the turret. Miserable.
So basically a military clown car?
Unloading Bradley's off of trains was a breeze compared to tanks. Unlike the M1 almost all of them started up and moved under their own power
The Bradley gets way to much hate for no real reason, Lazerpig did quite a good video on it and the whole reformist movement, still find it funny how people claimed the Bradley was bad because it didn't have enough armor when it wasn't supposed to be a tank it's supposed to drop troops off and provide support it doesn't have a need for large amounts of armor for it's role.
I'd argue it's a choice that's slowly starting to be reversed with the introduction of heavy IFV's like the PUMA or the Lynx, not to say the lack of armour on the bradley was inexcuseable, it had a lot more going for it than the bmp.
To be fair, for an IFV, it seemed to have been quite expensive nonetheless...
In opposition to the BMP-1 that is. Too complicated design for too simple of a job.
@@Алекса́ндрФёдоровичКе́ренс-ы3н
Being a universal IFV is not a simple job, you are looking at something that need to carry infantry safely and pack a punch. The Bradley has two ready TOW missiles.
The BMP1 and further itinerstions have like null armour on the turret and chasis, only having slight protection in front because of the ludicrous slope.
Even carrying troops is complex, packing +10 guys on a battlefield is risky
@@Алекса́ндрФёдоровичКе́ренс-ы3н IFV isn't a simple job. Simple would be an APC. BMP-1 is cheaper but worse, meant to be built and used in larger numbers
Personally, the only part I hate about the Bradley is that it's engine is a little underpowered for a vehicle of its size.
I loved our Bradleys. All kinds of things broke or bit ya all the time but those are completely worth dealing with. Just the bushmaster and optics paid for all the trouble let alone being able to squish crash through or obliterate with firepower anything in our way. It goes fast, doesn't immediately disintegrate when hit like a truck, holds everything you need and scared the piss outta bad guys when the 25 opened up
As someone who served with strykers, I wish we'd had Bradley's instead.
@@92HazelMocha I've talked with a stryker dismount before and he said they sucked ass to be inside of, especially in the winter
@@lrcolville1 He wasn't lying. They're absolutely terrible to work in. Add to that it has very little protection and firepower and in a lot of cases less mobility than Bradley's and I question why we even had them. People say the MGS was garbage, but to us that was the *good* stryker.
@@92HazelMocha I did 4 years on Strykers and 2 on Bradley's so far. The maintenance on a Stryker is way easier the 25 is cool to shoot but I hate maintaining it.
@@92HazelMocha what part of the Stryker family did you find the worst
I was a gunner for a little while on the Bradley. It's a pretty reliable system if your driver and gunner know what they're doing. Almost every issue with the gun is operator induced. At first I thought that was BS. Until I got pretty good with it and realized how true it was. My gun ran nearly flawless while other crews wanted to use my track. I didn't let them cause they broke theirs and knew they'd break mine.
What difference in use made them break quicker?
@@AH-64Delta it's usually just people not understanding how to load or operate the gun because they're not trained on it. A lot of times it's because nee guys show up, only have experience as a dismount, and then get put into a gunner position with nothing but simulator training. Then they go shoot their first gunnery, and realize they don't actually know how to operate the gun.
My Tank Bravo 1-3 was a champ. Gun droopage and had the oldest power-packed of the battalion. As long you did your PMCS, that tank was an absolute tac driver, and started everytime
@@codyamann12345 How was the gun loaded? What were the typical tricks and mistakes?
@@abitofapickle6255 What's a PMCS?
Kind of want to see this on the BMP-3, since it had a fun development cycle.
Except for the fact that the BMP-3 is still barely used, with variants of the BMP-2 still being the main line IFV in the Russian army. Meanwhile, the Bradley is quite literally the only IFV the US uses
@@filmandfirearms he said development cycle not deployment.
@@disturbedwaffle327 Yeah, but what's the point of talking about a difficult development cycle for something which either isn't used or is barely used?
@@filmandfirearms This is your brain on autism.
@@filmandfirearms AHEM, HSTV-L
Bradley mechanic veteran here. I served for 15 yrs and did 3 tours in Iraq. The first two tours being the first two rotations in Iraq. The Bradley's overall is a reliable vehicle. BUT it did suffer initially during the first couple of months in theater. Especially once the insurgency kicked off. The reason it suffered was due to our tracks sitting for long periods of time. Basically we saw allot of power train issues at the beginning due to what is referred to as Dry Rot. Oil lines. Gaskets. and other problems commonly seen in vehicles that have sat idle for long periods of time. And yes my unit did training before we deployed and yes we did train with our own vehicles. But the thing is normal field training and gunneries don't really stretch the legs of these vehicles. So many of these issues remained hidden until we were in Iraq and our Brad's are now doing 24 operations with crews rotating in and out aka hot seating. That's when we saw the problems show up. After about two months with the first being the worst by far. Most of the stuff that was going to break had already done so. After that our Brads ran like champs. It went from so hectic trying to keep tracks running that I didn't see my bunk for 3 whole days and ate all of my meals and slept on the Brads I was working on. To days and weeks of just chilling and doing normal maintenance stuff. The same situations happened for the Abrams guys on my team as well. They saw basically the same stuff we did at the beginning. And later they were back to normal ops. My 2nd tour with the Bradley's is where I learned how good and bad they are. Out of the 13 Brads the 101st ABN 1/32 Cav were given out of theater Pre-po stocks. 11 were coded out for IED damage. I recovered nearly all of them but 1. The thing about the Brads is that once they catch on fire. They just melt and turn into aluminum goo. I still got my pics of the ones I recovered that were still burning as I towed them back. You didn't sit around waiting for them to stop or else you gave the insurgents extra time to plan hits on you. Recovery vehicles were targets definitely. Out of the 11 Brads struck by IEDs and destroyed. Only 1 soldier died and it was due to burns suffered from a ruptured fuel cell. My biggest complaint about the Bradley is that it has internal fuel tanks. Honestly the fuel tanks were the crews biggest threat after an IED strike. I just hope that the next vehicle that's made has external fuel cells. External fuel cells may be vulnerable to combat damage. But they are also FAR cheaper to replace than a full vehicle. And pose far less risk to the crews of the vehicle than internal tanks do. But overall as a weapons platform the Bradley was very deadly to our enemies and reliable and easily maintained. Especially if your maintenance guys and vehicle crews are on the same page and do their vehicle maintenance.
Engineer’s perspective:
External fuel tanks being hit would be mission-kill.
Sadly, Extremely unpractical, given “bang for buck” limitations of army equipment ^^ ❤
This is the best comment on RUclips regarding the Bradley. Kudos to you.
To the armor complaint about the Bradley and it’s general usage just follow the chieftain quote “Use as directed”
The Bradley performs remarkably well given all of its design compromises and troubled early development and birthing, and has the combat record to back it up. One correction: on swimming, the M2A2/M3A2 were still required to swim and had the swim barrier; the Army only stopped swimming them when a Safety of Use Message was issued in 1995. The A3 variants were built without swim barriers finally, but the actual requirement to swim (along with the requirement for firing ports) was not formally rescinded until 2011.
Loves this video like the other informational videos . I was a M3A3 driver, gunner , and dismount 1-7 cav. I loved the Bradley, the IBAS was a great system when you zeroed it properly. The 25mm bushmaster cannon sounds still resonate and was fun learning how to dismantle + reassemble it. Recently I found out the Bradley had a Swim kit 😂.
Thanks again for these types of videos . I really really enjoyed this one.
When I reclassed to cavalry scout in the late 90s, the Army was doing a lot of comparisons between the Bradley, M113A3, and HMMWV for scouting, especially for light divisions and National Guard. By that time we had figured out Bradley tactics, and it worked well as long as all of the actual reconnaissance was done by dismounts and the track was kept as a battle taxi and light tank reaction force about 2km behind the dismounts. It didn't make for very fast recon, since the vehicles were too loud to bring near anything you haven't already scouted, but it was effective. There are some big advantages to having something armed and armored as a nearby reserve.
Pure recon is faster with HMMWVs because they are much quieter, especially their doors as compared to the ramps of a Bradley or 113. You do not want your enemy to hear you getting out of a vehicle 1200m away. Distant engine sounds might be your own supply trucks, but the sound of ramps dropping means you need to be on alert. Because humvees are quieter, instead of dismounting a dozen scouts and having them out on foot all day, a HMMWV scout platoon mostly rides, but has 2-3 scouts constantly running or crawling ahead (with those 2-3 switching out with others throughout the day). The humvees will effectively move by bounds with their dismounts, keeping the trucks within 500m or a single terrain feature. Trucks aren't very good fire support, but they are close by and can respond in seconds instead of minutes. Tracks end up effectively moving at a walking pace since they need to stay well-behind their dismounts, but HMMWVs mostly do recon at a running pace.
It's the light tank aspects of the Bradley that make it competitive though. On contact with the enemy, HMMWV scouts mostly have to lay down suppressive fire, mount up and flee, but Bradley scouts effectively have light tanks supporting them. The real deciding factor for why most scout platoons are in HMMWVs is that Bradleys can't fly on a C-130, so they can't support light brigades.
The only real complaint I ever had with the Bradley is that operator-level maintenance on it requires both metric and SAE wrenches, and way to many of them. The same level of maintenance on an M1 mostly takes 2 wrenches (15mm and 30mm), and you can do most operator-level maintenance on a HMMWV with a multi-tool. It's not that big a flaw, really.
The Stryker Dragoon is probably the all-around best recon vehicle the US Army has. It can do most of what the Bradley does well, while also being quiet enough to use close to the enemy like the HMMWV.
Hello, this was a great video. I can't wait to see more!
Love your videos man. Thank you for making them.
Glad you like them man
@@Spookston hey man can you make video about how bad is Japanese or Italian tanks were?
Always enjoy your videos. Always informative and never leave them without learning something.
Could you do an in depth look on the LAV-3?
Possibly
I love the lav 3 but man it had problems. In Afghanistan it sometime flipped over on rough terrain and it’s 25mm chain gun obviously couldn’t penatrate the sometimes meters thick walls of the grape drying huts used as bunkers by the taliban. I think most of its problems were as result of doctrine and lack though. Since the Canadian government had gotten rid of most of its tanks, helicopters, and didn’t send any jets to Kandahar, instead having to ask for air support from other countries. Still if had a choice of wether to be in a lav 3 or a hummvee I’d take the lav any day.
LAV and Bardley same cannon so do vid pls
This really makes me want a video of you interviewing the chieftain on the experiences with the tanks he was in
I always have the feeling people jump on bandwagons to criticize IFVs very fast anyway. Same with the Puma which was also heavily criticized by people, who were not even aware of it's role and to which system it compares.
As far as I am aware the Bradley was, especially for it's time, a very decent IFV. It seemed to be the natural fit for US doctrine and I'd say it's track record isn't the worst.
Of course with the introduction of newer systems like our Puma or the Lynx, KF-21, Kurganets-25 etc. it seems less impressive on paper, but it's still a very solid IFV to this day and can more than hold its own against contemporary IFVs from the eastern bloc in terms of infantry support.
We've been wanting to replace it for a while since it is at this point 50 year old tech, but the thing about replacing the USA fleet is the USA fleet is huge. So when you replace it, you got to do it right the first time because you are going to be building thousands of them. Prior attempts have demonstrated that the technology we wanted at the time wasn't yet ready for the real world. In the meantime, the only people who have even a marginally better IFV are allies, and you can always upgrade the electronics pretty cheaply to keep it relevant on a modern battlefield.
I suspect that once APS gets mature we'll see the US revisit replacing it's AFV fleet. It's pretty obvious modern AFV's are going to need 360 dome protection against weapon systems like loitering munitions, top-attack ATGMs, and guided mortar rounds. But exactly what that system will look like - energy weapons, 40mm grenade launcher, 30mm autocannon, micro-sized SAGMs - is still being decided and worked on. I suspect in 10-20 years we'll see a new platform with space provided for a multipurpose weapon system that can be swapped out for whatever future APS turns out to work best.
Well thats because there are many 'experts' that get referenced and interviewed.
@@deezboyeed6764 also known as the woozle effect.
Good coverage of the topic.
It would be nice if you consider doing a follow-on video going into detail on the differences between the Cavalry and IFV versions & the reasons for those differences. Possibly touching on the M6 Linebacker.
Also, to be fair, there were variants of the M113 that had more firepower than you would expect to find in a mere "battle taxi."
I loved and hated the bradley, never had an issue with the bushmaster only because I was careful with PMC. The heater rarely worked either it was hotter than hell or you better cuddle up with your buddy. Cramped in the back, driver hit a ditch and I woke up in my squad leaders lap. But man the thing kept breaking down with random things but what you said about the radiator is true that thing is absolute garbage. I thought it was hilarious when i told the mechanics that the radiator is messed up and they ignored my warning as they tried to get it onto the train carts the radiator blew. Weird...it's like I have been complaining about that for weeks.
You'd think they'd at least do a quick test to see if your complaints were founded. But I'm a civilian and all I know is shit is different in the military 🪖 *shrug*
An idea for a video I had was a list of armored vehicles that had the biggest impact on how armored warfare was fought and/or caused a change in direction when it comes to designs.
The BMP-1 is a great example as it caused the West to design counterparts.
The IS-3 would be another.
I'm sure there are tons of known, but also more obscure examples out there.
Thats not quite true, it was actually germans who introduced the first vehicle of this role, something like 6-8 years before the BMP. The first "modern" IFV would be the german Schützenpanzer Lang-30. Not a good vehicle, but it was the first one.
Relied to a big degree on WW2 experience with Panzergrenadiers (german mechanized infantry).
FT-17, Dreadnought (ship)
@COMMANDERWILL GAMES BR Tbf everyone forgets that one xD
I love the Bradley since I share a first name with who it was named after (Omar Bradley) and I love IFV/APC combinations like BMPs and the Brad.
The Bradley is solely an IFV not a hybrid
I'm a dismount and a jump gunner for the brads. In my experience working with the m2a2 models, the biggest flaw in my opinion is the dismount capacity. There's unaffordable time that is taken up by assembling with your scattered dismounted element after a dp since they can only fill 6 out of the 9 squad personal. If these new brad models come through, then there will be a lot of time, and eventually lives saved.
Note: To compensate for that, each Bradley section will often have an assault squad with an MG attachment. Majority of the time, it works pretty well. However, that means its only 2 dismounted Squads w/ MG per platoon.
also note: Jus call them brads
A jump gunner is a dismount who hops on the gun if the Track Commander dismounts or dies.
I was an M3 Bradley Gunner and worked at the United States infantry board at Fort Benning testing out the reactive tile Bradley's back in the 80s.
I almost wished you had written this video today. Given its performance in ukraine.
Bradley is a joke unfortunately
@@Apnah13idk man, a design originating in 1963 being a major contributor to beating a “modern” t-90, and likely having its crew surviving when damaged doesn’t seem like a joke to me.
@@TonyChan-eh3nz It was a one time event in the entire two year war and since that the bradleys have just been performing the same hit by a FPV and destroyed
@@mortalz9940 and when the drone hit, the turrets didn’t join nasa along with the remains of the crew.
@@Apnah13 tore 2 btrs apart yesterday
Thank you for these videos. I really enjoy watching them King
I think alot of countries would take what American troops consider a bad vehicle over what ever they have.
Colombia for example
not in the case of the bradley(only 2 countries bought them) the cv90 has had more export than the bradley
Coming from the Philippines which is happily taking surplus M113s from America, I think you're on to something here
I watched Pentagon Wars, then I read the book. At first, and even though I had been on Bradleys for a long time at that point, I believed that bullshit, but then I went to Bradley Master Gunner school and realized that guys like James Burton and that Black Tail turd are just full of shit. The Bradley is a great combat platform. One of the things I love about it is how incredibly resilient it is, and even in a complete power loss it is still capable of putting up a fight. It's like the machine wants to fight more than the soldiers using it, and you can't ask for a better combat vehicle than that.
Can you do a video on the programs trying to replace the Bradley and which one is most likely to win
I was Platoon Leader for the first 6 M3 CFVs ever built back in the '80s. They were maintenance hogs, mainly wiring issues, but they weren't horrible as AFVs. Most maintenance problems were the result of a system that wasn't prepared for that level of complexity, and in my 15 months as PL, we had fixed almost all of them. Vehicle height is the most overrated issue, as it is extremely easy to assume hull or even turret defilade with a Bradley. The BMP is horrible to actually fight from due to it's small size and lack of ergonomics.
All that talk about APC‘s and IFV‘s and me, a former Austrian infantry man, is thinking: wait, you guys have armored vehicles? Seriously, if we drove, we had trucks or small „Pinzgauer“. Most of the time we were on foot, partially for training but also because we had too few vehicles, let alone armored ones (the politicians thought we didn’t need those since wars are a thing of the past, turned out to be totally wrong)
My grandfather got to help make the m2 ammo loader and test the night vision
I was an army brat coming up around the time of the gulf war, I remember several soldiers giving this vehicle a lot of praise. Mostly comfort and all the useful equipment in it.
I loved these vehicles, served as a driver, gunner and tc and a dismount. She never let me down.
An IFV isn't supposed to be a light tank, it's a beefed up armored car capable of punching up above it's weight class, and it's fills a vital modern battlefield role.
Despite all the positive praise in the comments, I believe Phly made a collab video on the Bradley in which a former crew member expressed his fair criticism. I don't think it's accurate to say that the hate for the Bradley is "undue". It's a back and forth, there's always going to be things people like and dislike.
Ofc I know the point of this was to highlight its actual usefulness in combat, which is often disregarded when discussing the Bradley.
Can you do a video on if ULQ is better than HQ etc? Comparing differences and so on
Guess i’ll just ask for a ho-ri prototype video again
I'll get around to it eventually
Was gonna say first but I gained a brain cell 🗿
🗿
strong man.
😂
Gay z gaming
How ironic, you support ukraine but have a litteral Z in your name.
Brad.
Brad.
Brad.
Brad.
Brad.
Brad.
good friend of mine served in a bradley for his entire deployment and while he certainly had complaints they overall feel that vehicle saved their life a number of times in both irag and felucia. they had been hit with IEDs more than once that the bradley saved their ass and allowed them to keep fighting. They have a great deal most complaints about the humvee. LOL
Mostly think swapping the TOW for a Javelin might have been smart but its become a fave of mine tbh
You should make a video of the Strf90 or the CV90 family as a whole. It's an IFV that I 100% unbiasedly as a Swede find very interesting especially now with the MK4 version and especially especially the one with the 50mm autocannon...
Particularly well-spoken closing statement. Very well captures the fact that a lot of the time, a problem is with the youth of the concept rather than the design.
I think US Army is making a big mistake limiting the crew and dismount requirements for OMFV to only 2 crew and 6 dismounts. Most of competitors can accommodate up to 3 crew and dismounts (possibly even 3+9 configuration) like Lynx KF-41, CV-90 Mk IV, and Hanwha AS-21. The 3rd crew members can control UAV or UGV to support the infantry meanwhile drivers will focus on driving and the gunner will use it's weapon.
Loving the videos my man. But one question, could you look over some of the LAV series of vehicle? Idk why but I’m interested in them.
I used to work on the M242 25mm cannons when I was active duty.
Pretty levelheaded analysis, and accurate IMO. In my experience, every maintainer that I met that had to work on it loathed it. meanwhile folks that got to be crew for it, whether infantry or cav, seemed to love the thing to a near religious extent, except for when they had to PMCS it. Also, thing probably started the death before dismount memes in the infantry and armor branches too lol. So the part about some officers disliking it for giving crews and squads bad habits in terms of TTPs is probably still an ongoing, but relatively minor, issue that usually gets beat out of junior leaders (NCO and commissioned alike) whenever its their unit's turn to go in for a TC rotation or if they have vigilant BN leadership. Do note, that as the Spookston himself clarifies, this isn't really a Bradley issue, its more of an IFV issue. Plenty of cases of BMP and BTR crews in UKR currently getting their shit kicked in for exercising this habit in combat.
Only experience riding in an M2, tagging along with some infantry. Not the best ride, but fine. On the way back, hydraulics failed for the ramp. Had to drag it bag to base on the asphalt sparking the whole time. The breeze made for a better ride even if the locals seemed concerned about.
>US wanted a battle taxi that could support from a distance
>Bradley is a battle taxi that can support from a distance
Like, it did what it was designed to, sure some tradeoffs here and there.
But it literally isn't a Marder and was never intended for the role the way heavier German IFVs fulfilled.
Id personally love to see a video about the AMX-10RC, a french tank destroyer/scout tank.. commentary could also be some information about french late cold war tanks
for that, you can find SEARCH field in this webpage (and any browser) there are ten of such videos,as for every tank/vehicle type
For those who haven't, I reccomend looking into the vulnerability testing of the Bradley, it is quite entertaining
you mean the absolute circus of reformers?
you mean the one where they already knew what would happen so they didnt want to blow up an expensive prototype and because of that the circus of reformers screams corruption every 2 seconds
Shooting a IFV with AT weapons? Weapons designed to kill MBTs. Yeah bits do fly far but in desert storm M2/M3 did defeat tanks not by tanking shots rather by shooting first
@@nahuelleandroarroyo Burton seemed to be convinced that the Bradley should just survive a penetrating hit from a TOW missile; somehow.
That CNC Generals music never gets old.
I'm wondering how a video on the Marder (the IFV) would look like, how it performed, did it come to being from the Schutzenpanzer the US was so interested in
Here's an interesting thoughts video idea: what WWII tanks do you think could potentially hold it's own today if given the proper tools (IR, computer tracking, laser rangefinder, etc). Changing nothing in terms of it's outside features, but moreso the inside mechanisms
None.
@@eirik8711 you're probably right, but I just thought I'd ask
well, if you'd upgrade the engine and gave them a better gun'
I think german late war projects like Tiger, Tiger II and Panther would be a lot more interesting
@@timkey_4542 Fix the transmissions and put more reliable engines, in first, and then think about adding more weight to already underpowered vehicles IMO. The lifespans may be extended with 10yrs at the most probably
None at all. German designs would be worse in every way, but none of these vehicles have the survivability (armor or post-pen) to live on a modern battlefield.
You forget that the M2 has only 25mm of frontal Armor the BMP-1 has a 76mm Canon witch means that one shot can destroy the M2 also the TOW Missile only has a 3km max range so if a friendly tank is not covering or escorting an M2 Bradley it's vulnerable to any tank
Not mention how many ways the TOW is countered these days.
That’s why it’s always working with tanks and other Bradley’s and airsupport and artillery too not to mention there’s not one tank that can take a TOW missile to the face and live so it’s a trade off and the TOW outranges most Tank guns and only downsides are bad firing over water or in a forest or jungle but will still have its 30 soon 50 mm gun
But isn't that M2 was built for? The requirements where to make a vehicle that can work with tanks and infantry, be able to take 14.5 to front and sides and have TOW missiles to support tanks? BMP1 can take out a Bradley, but the Bradley can take out a BMP1, it can also take out tanks, proven too. And with it's mission role, it's gonna be covered by infantry and tanks wherever it goes.
M3s are a support vehicle with it's own infantry, the main job of the Bradley is to support its counterpart the M60 (now retired) amd the M1 Abrams with mounted Infantry, it has TOW-2s to counter tanks such as the T-64, 72, 80, 62, and 54/55 tanks it's not built to fight tanks head on.
you showing the XM723 and the 1st thing that comes to my mind is "theres the next warthunder event vehicle"
If you want to do one of these on the warrior i archived some MoD documents from around it's adoption a while ago which had some enlightening information about the army's opinion of it
10 second mark - that’s a Brad from a tank in my old battalion - and I definitely know the LT up in that hatch haha
I've spoken with a few Bradley crewmembers over the years and I think the one consistent complaint they have is that they hit their head a lot on various shit.
Re watching everything about how terrible the Chadley is is confusing, ever since it’s rather impressive use in Ukraine. You know, surviving a shot from a T72 and the “incident” with the T90M.
Chadley🤓 what a fuсking nerd you are. Also they are getting destroyed every few days and burn good. T90 was blinded before it met bradleys
@@deemwinch cope Ztard still no kharkiv, still no kyiv
@@deemwinchit’s been 2 years and half a million men Putin feet kisser
Nothing is impressive about surviving a HE-FRAG and the T-90M incident doesn’t mean anything , as it’s turret was disabled by FPV munitions not the Bradley
If you haven't already I think a video talking about/playing the F2G-1 super Corsair would be interesting as it was the first free battle pass vehicle
It wasn't. It was probably the best IFV in the world in its heyday, and as has been demonstrated in Ukraine, it's still a nightmare in the hands of a good crew nearly 40 years later.
Drove the M113,both the internal and external fuel tank models. (M113,M113 A2?)
They also got more and more shockes also.
42 miles a hour is on the decals as recommended rated top speed.
Can get those things going 55 or better.
Downhill, tailwind and full sails as the boys say!! 😂🤣
After awhile though, your arms get pretty sore, especially when you have both hands on one tiller bar just keeping her going in a straight line on the highway!! 🇨🇦
love this type of video keep it up man
Why don't we just create space ships that can drop units from orbit, modern problems require modern solutions
It's too dangerous and expensive
WERE DROPPING FEET FIRST STRAIGHT INTO HELL SOLDIERS!
Titanfall moment
Why are the coolest options the worst ones
@@cole3467 because combat isn't as glamorous or interesting as video games and movies make it out to be. It's literally just waiting for weeks or months and then you take contact but it's just three rounds that got fired over your head and then nothing happens again for weeks.
Would be fun to hear about the dardos
How bad was the warrior IFV?
how do you find these amazing videos of inside the fighting compartments?
It’s my favorite “tank” of all time. And it’s extremely fun/deadly in Bad Company (2).
I served on and taught the M3. When you consider what it was replacing the M113 well you cant say anything bad about it. Bushmaster is a badass weapon. We had no break down issues on them than anything else that I can remember.
Could you do the Chieftain or T-72 ?
I was mech infantry. We hated the Bradley in every aspect with the exception of the heater in the winter. I’ve served as a driver and gunner on one over the course of about 4 out of my 6 and a half years. I despised it whole heartedly. It’s stupid loud, the wall between myself and the engine would get so hot I’d heat my MRE’s by setting it against it on the gear shift, which really blows in the summertime in the desert while being forced to wear MOPP gear. Also ridiculously cramped if you’re average size or above, for the gunner especially over a certain length of time.
I'm non-combat personnel serving in a Scout unit primarily made up of Bradleys. As much as people like to complain about the classical Bradley flaws, the only real issues with the vehicle's design are the inevitable outcomes of aging. Everyone imagines what a platform designed in the 2010s could do in place of the Bradley, but that's not a valid criticism of the Bradley itself.
I would love to see a 8.3/8.7 china wheely bois lineup video (WMA, PTL02, AFT09)
I’m not sure if you’ve done a video on it before but maybe consider making a somewhat similar vid on the British Warrior 👀. I’ve recently been having lots of fun with it in war thunder, even bringing it into 11.0
Coming out from the military from 3abct the Bradley has decreased quiet a bit since than a lot of my friends who were gunners drivers for the Bradley have a lot of gun engine transmission issues and unfortunately a lot of the parts we do get are old refurbished parts
The bmp and bradly series are my favorite IFVS
I understand things are getting older and shit. But keep it till a replacement is warranted.
The russian Universal Armata platform that made the T-15 HIFV, is something next gen SHOULD look into.
the US needs both a light and heavy IFV category. Light can still mean wheeled vehicles.
But whats up with the marines and its IFVs? It has THREE IFVs.
The LAV-25. The Stryker IFV. And AAV-7.
The Marines still dont have an idea for what to do with Tanks nether.
The army is looking at the Griffin 120, 105, and 50mm. Why isnt the marines?
Because the Marines are getting rid of their tanks, they've basically dissolved their tank corps, probably because they're expecting to do more amphibious and island fighting soon.
@@whythefrown the Griffin isnt a tank though. its a mobile firepower package.
@@LynnetteJJW exactly, the Marines are looking for lighter platforms to complement amphibious attacks, which the Abrams was too heavy to be a satisfactory option.
Not sure how much you would find but a video on the creation of the AAV7 would be cool
imo the only fair criticism about Bradley is that it's slower than the Abrams which it should have been at least as fast
It’s only slightly slower. Not a significant difference
its also not very good in the snow(compared to the cv90)
The Bradley was always my favorite tank. Dunno why. The Abrams was cool, yeah, but I think it was the autocannon and the TOW missile pack. Also, it could carry people. But, then again, I'm a Navy man. I don't know shit about ditch digging.
Loved my BFV, saved me and my crew countless times in Ramadi.
Could you do a video on how to play it? How to approach the enemies?
my only gripe with the Bradley is its low dismount capacity, but US squad sizes are fairly large.
Will you make videos on ksp2 when it arrives?
Do a video discussing the state of top tier ground rb and how it has shifted over time from a German bias to a Russian bias in a sense. Meaning from a focus on German vehicles being added to a Russian one. This isn't to say Germany still doesn't get fancy new toys, like the PUMA IFV, but compared to Russia they're falling behind in terms of favor. Obviously this is money but I'd love to see a deep dive discussing how it changed, when, why, and what the future looks like for the game.
For what it's worth I have had fun operating this vehicle in video games. Also looks much nicer than the BMP.
My brother-in-law was in the U.S. Marine Corps. He said that most American weapons, vehicles and equipment are trash... until they're compared to what soldiers from other armies have to use. For some context, he served in Cuba, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines.
The stupidest argument I see about the Bradley is the whole “it can’t fight tanks like a tank can” thing. Yeah of course it can’t. That’s why we still have tanks…
I don't think of the Brad as bad vic, but as commo, this thing was a pain to work on. Shit is always not working and BAE didn't like giving up NSN's for repair parts. I also wish crews did commo checks weekly instead of the day of gunnery, be real nice.
So I have an interesting idea for a video. It would be interesting to do a video about how you would bring back the Stuart light tanks for modern use in the scouting and supporting Infantry rolls like it originally was. Like how would you modernize it what changes to the core design and ect. It would be sorta like the Sherman vid but about the Stuart tanks.
throw to scrapyard and use Bradley or Stryker instead, of course.
Can I also point out that it’s stigma could also stem from when ever you stayed near one in MW2 [old version] for more than 10 seconds it got hit with every possible RPG.
no dumb rookie. Real life things are NOT assessed from your dumb rookie game, especially when they were built and proven sturdy,reliable and surviving - long ago earlier that bullshyt game even started in your head... also with your head development itself 😞
The Bradley IS. It’s current. It’s not a WAS!
I think one of the reasons people are dislike the Bradley is because they thought it *originally* was designed for being an APC rather than IFV, and if they were told it was designed to be an IFV from the ground up that whould change things
am i hearing C&C generals American music? bringing back some good memories
If you play GHPC and you hate yourself enough to play as the Soviets, you´ll learn to fear Bradleys a loooot more than even M60A3s
I swear if a single fragment of shrapnel gets into a T-72 it goes up in flames
There are no Soviets in GHPC ;)
@@Bluehawk2008 Touchée
@@Bluehawk2008 "bUt AcTuAlLy EaSt GeRmAnY hhhh"
*face is melted off from spalling after 105mm apfsds strikes the front plate of their secondhand T-55*