"No one goes to Fresno for a vacation, Colonel." I'm from Fresno and they nailed that correctly. The wasy they stitched this movie together is brilliant.
@@DASCO2136 Because they're an absolute joke. They believe that the the US military should use old and outdated equipment to solve modern military problems. Imagine believing that the M1's engine is dangerous to troops that walk behind it because it would burn them to death, the ammo is dangerous cause it's combustible just like the M551 and my personal favorite according to Pierre Spree the M48 was more survivable than the M1 because the Army never did any live fire tests. In the aviation side of things, they're the ones who proposed that the A-10 shouldn't have any radar, radar warning receivers nor a Constantly Computed Impact Point (CCIP). Same goes with the F-15 and F-16 except they wanted it to be a gun only aircraft because missiles are unreliable. James Burton (main character in book and film) proposed the idea of the Blitzfighter which is similar to the A-10. But when his superiors said that it should get a radar he said no basically because according to him radar can't differentiate a tank to a tree or a car filled with refugees. Also, when the army was making the A1 to improve survivability he suggested that the Bradley should put all of its ammo and fuel outside the vehicle and during the Army's High Survivability Test Bed Program the Army moved the water supply to the center of the vehicle so that if it got hit and there was an internal fire the water would put it out and he was outraged because according to him that's cheating apparently.
I wished we had we are in a world where the Russians were stopped by fucking Maxim machine guns and cold war RPGs while our super high tech wonder weapon tanks can't even cross trenches and anti tank ditches that ww1 generals would see no difference in from the war they just left.
@@Woodartifact388 why you booing me I'm right. Last I checked the whole war has devolved into trench warfare and artillery duels with drones and attack Helicopters.
The mix of comedy and seriousness kept me focused the whole time while watching this movie. All of the cast fill their roles strongly, but I would like to single out Kelsey Grammer as General Partridge. He is able to create a cunning character here, who is probably a military leader, but could just as well be a manipulative CEO, as we know in the corperate world.
Brilliant movie, even if it's a joke or not it still better than most bs movies that hollywood makes nowadays. 80s and 90s rocking till this day because of things like this, being a comedy, drama or action movie, they were all high quality and very entertain to watch; Now you barely find a good movie from "top tier" studios.
I enjoy this movie inspite of it being "A True Story" its a funny caricature of the procurement process. This is just me and its with all movies like this and it suspends my disbelief, and yes its a nit pick, it looks EXTREMLY Southern California.
A similar film could be made about the Boeing 737 except their emphasis is on net profits; damn safety, full speed ahead (putting profits ahead of quality inspections & safety, to keep cash flow high).
Just like every Project! and not just the USA, and Uncle sam. That any of them work at all, is a miracle, and they could have been so much better, and cheaper if done right in the first place. Thanks for putting this film up.
Having been a grunt in the Army when this was going on it brought back memories. Never did get in a unit with Bradleys. Just fixed up the ole M 113s for turn in then left for another duty station and did it again. I had a buddy who's Father did these kinds of tests, both were mechanical wizards who knew their stuff. This movies sounds like my buddy's dad's stories.
@@a.randomjack6661 just a heads up, Col. James Burton is a professional bull crapper and it was proved that 90% of this movie based on his book either didnt happen or didnt happen as described
@@mrjohnsonjohn no because James Burton is a notoriously pathological liar. The whole reason he got reassigned in the first place was that he submitted a really retarded design for an aircraft and when the Air Force told him to fuck off he got assigned to the Bradley project with an axe to grind. He’s famously reclusive as he refuses to give any interviews or any comments to the press
@@jasonbourne1596burtons “tests” were BS and not proper for the testing of new equipment, and burton himself is mischaracterised as a well meaning officer as opposed to his real life equivalents high levels of corruption and ties to the ‘reformers’
From a British perspective... NOTHING HAS CHANGED !! Example: the £1-million each British Foxhound patrol vehicle, signed into service in 2012 Afghanistan despite it failing hot weather trials. Generals & government ministers were so busy with that corrupt on 11 Sept 2012 (run fake trials on Camp Bastion airfield) that they forgot to guard Camp Bastion's airfield. On 14 September the Taliban attacked the airfield, killed two US Marines & destroyed $400-million of kit - but all failures were covered up in subsequent inquiries, nobody British officers were held to account & the Foxhound continued into service. In 2017 it was reported that the Foxhound was still breaking down in hot weather - the fault was never fixed & it did cost British & allied personnel their lives. 'The Pentagon Wars' is a BRILLIANT film, exposing the corrupt profiteers that still populate our higher commands - hats off to all involved.
While many hated how the story was far from factual, I still liked the movie for accurately portrays the chaotic mess of government bureaucracy and its politics. I think Kelsey Grammer did his part very well. Yes the so called "reformers" getting flamed lately for many of their dubious claim and controversy, but we have to understand that this is a movie not a documentary, and they shouldn't always be accurate and stick to the real story.
Initial, I thought it was accurate. But after reading up on, it, turns out it was extremely inaccurate and very one-sided. The “hero” of the movie had his own theory of how the military should be run. Meanwhile, the Bradley still in service.
The movie is very accurate, it is only the current military fan boys who lack any idea what the movie is about. Simply, the initial Bradley manufactured before 1988 was a lemon, it was until the live fire test Col. Burton insisted upon was the Bradley improved with more armor protection. Col. Burton was worried about the survivability rate of the soldiers if the Bradley got hit not if an anti-tank weapon could pierce the armor of the Bradley.
@@michaelotieno6524 No, the movie is very inaccurate. I actually research that after I watched it. The “hero” of the movie had his own agenda. The stuff like this happened, I’m sure. But not like this. If you take things that happen and pretend it happened on this program then that’s called inaccurate. By the way, the Bradley still in service
@@michaelotieno6524 and you do understand the conundrum facing the Army, right? That an IFV can only be so armored and protected before it becomes as heavy and as expensive as a main battle tank. This entire movie is the film version of “Hah, I portrayed you as the soyjack and myself as the Gigachad, I win” courtesy of the ‘Reformists.’
I served in the Army from 1983-1986. I was stationed at Ft. Ord,CA when the Sgt. York was being tested. I trained on M113's I never saw the Bradley or the M1. This movie is very interesting.
The fuel tanks being filled with water and the ammunition being filled with sand was to show which ones were most vulnerable. If the entire vehicle exploded, it would be difficult to tell which one did.
They also stripped the dummies so they could douse the uniforms with water first. When they did the test, they could see which uniforms were about to ignite without them all burning to ash.
I suspect that the Bradley is the most popular piece of armour to end up in Ukraine, but it's addition to the Western armour graveyard in Moscow is probably it's most impressive gig...
@@bobwoods1302 Agreed... they all burn and the Abrams in Moscow hadn't even been cleaned up before it was put on display! In fact, the video segment I watched showed the channel author get his hands dirty as he touched it. Armour of all kinds ends up burnt in Ukraine, including the "invincible" turtle tank, which is almost impossible to stop!
@@bobwoods1302 I have no idea what you mean, but your reply sounds like a snappy soundbite. Have you watched the (free on RUclips) foreign language film White Tiger? If you haven't, may I recommend it? It has English subtitles but looks at the life of a tank crew in WW2, among other things. Spoiler alert... the T-34 doesn't do so well in the film!
A lovely reminder for everyone that the reformers (which burton is a part of) don’t understand what role the Bradley (and other modern equipment) is supposed to play, and measure the effectiveness of an new system with the same Metric as the old, despite the fact that warfare changed and the new equipment plays a now different role
1:43:40 Great movie!! I was a 19D cavalry scout during the time of this movie. So many things ring true about the attitudes of Army officers during this time period.
My dad was a fighter pilot during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Then served at SAC and the Pentagon and retired a Colonel. I remember being in the Pentagon quite a few times as a kid back in the late 60's and early 70's. The floors go up in a real gentle spiral. Even back then there was a robot that would deliver mail down the hallway. Also there were reliefs in the walls. Dioramas of finely built model ships and planes behind glass. he was part of designing the F-111 at that time. Service had always been stressful and he drank alot. This was very enlightening as he died thirty years ago so I can't ask him about it, but I bet it was the same a few years back in his time. He retired in '72. We even went to see the military band play at the Watergate Hotel on New Years of that infamous year.
Procurement. Never an easy task. As a comedy, this is an okay movie. As a depiction of the actual story - it's bo11ocks. For starers, why an APC or an IFV even should be able to sustain an anti-tank round. Even tanks rarely do...
@@AnzaChannel123 Yes, yes... Add empirical evidence, for instance: all those Bradleys operating in Ukraine, that usually turn Ruzzians into homogenate, and often can stand up to their tanks. All with absolutely excellent survivability for an IFV and I think we are done here.
In recent years, it's been discovered that Burton lied about a lot of things that are portrayed here. It's frustrating because Burton's approach involves playing with people's emotions. People like underdogs fighting the system, and he knows that all too well. Few examples. -The MICV program that led to the Bradley was always intended to have a turret. One of the early proposals was more or less a modified M113 that had a turret. -The Bradley program was actually around 4 billion UNDERBUDGET when Burton was involved in the program. This was out of a total project budget of 12 billion, as was discussed during the real-life hearing (which is portrayed late in the film). -Burton was the one who came up with the Joint Live Fire Test Program, in which he intended to destroy Bradleys. This was opposed because a.) he would be covering ground already covered and b.) it would be a costly program compared to point-by-point tests. Burton decided to see this as evidence of a cover-up. Other things, like the bit about water in the gas tanks, are misrepresented to make him look like the good guy. This shows vulnerabilities without completely destroying a vehicle or rendering it useless. The film also plays on emotions by making you think that the M2 needs to withstand anything and everything. And that anyone who doesn't agree with this doesn't care about the troops. So why did Burton go on this crusade, anyways? There's evidence to suggest that Burton was taking his anger out on the military for rejecting an aircraft proposal he drew up. He prided himself in being against things like infared, radar, and other such things. He was told the aircraft would at least need a radar, which he proclaimed couldn't tell the difference between a tank and a VW bus full of civvies (spoiler alert: things like radar and thermals allow you to make that distinction). So when his idea was turned down, he reacted like a kid being told to eat their vegetables. This isn't a story about exposing corruption and fighting for the men in the field. This is a fable spun by a scorned man looking to get even, consequences be damned, using manipulation and half-truths.
Yep, bullshit. Still doesn't change that the US military overspends like crazy and has to an increasing degree pursued idiotic or at least badly thought out and non-dedicated designs, due to the politicking and lucrativeness of a war economy for a country that doesn't itself have to directly go to war. The good end of it is in fact represented by things like the Bradley and the F-35; Vehicles and pieces of equipment which after a whole lot of brute forcing and in combination with intense testing and first-round field fixes end up as decently functional combat hardware. But that's the _good_ end of the spectrum. On the other end you have things like UCP camo, the Osprey, torpedoes that consistently fail to perform, countless cases of radar and lidar design failures... Usually smaller things, granted - but it all adds up. That's the problem. That's what ol' Dwight was partially warning about. The fundamental incentive of the Military Industrial Complex is to be an inefficiency maximizer. And while it may be that eventually enough of the stuff that gets turned out just by sheer amount of shit thrown at the wall passes muster... Well, when e.g. the CV90 can measure up to the Bradley or even by small measures outperform it, that's not a big whopper; But when put in the perspective that it was designed, tested and built by a marginal back-end nation in about half the time and at a _fraction_ of the cost... The comparison that springs to mind is Honda, Suzuki and all the others getting beat by Ducati in MotoGP. When they're giant industrials with billions dedicated to racing development and experience from even more fields to pull, while the other is a hard-run comparatively boutique shop with less than a twelfth of the budget. The problem is the waste. Which is in itself a two-way street. Because firstly that money goes towards that churning machine of turning around metal uselessly, seeing as it will often simply end up on the scrap heap - which is not the harm in itself really; It's called a deterrence, and it does get recovered and sponsor some actual production and engineering and recovery jobs and turnout. But it does do harm by over-promoting the unmeritorious and boosting politicals and agendas that couldn't work without the oodles of waste cash and sleaze that it enables. And secondly, that money then detracts from or crowds out the stuff and the people that is actually meritorious, more focused on pure engineering. That's the issue that some kind of film _should_ have been made about. It's just that it would be hard to film or get any sort of consistent red thread through it all, to make some kind of tie-in subject or project to center it all around for a narrative. Not to mention it would be difficult just to get some people _engaged._ "What are you talking about? We already know the military waste so much money!" Instead we got this bit of garbage.
@@johnw1954There are some serious differences in those two movies tho - Death of Stalin is a full blown comedy, a lot of historical facts were changed or condensed in time to better fit the movie format. But overall the movie does a very good job portraying the terror Stalin posed and the political climate and power struggle which occured after his death - of course in a exaggerated, comical way. Pentagon wars on the other hand is just straight up lies tho, fully made to discredit the military and push a false narrative.
but it does need to withstand AT LEAST a $30 60 year old handheld anti tank rocket that almost everyone has, and because of the reformer efforts it did. this was partly the reason for the success of the gulf war with so little American casualties.
I read somewhere that they actually were looking at designing a dedicated troop carrier variant of the Bradley, increasing it's troop capacity, as intended from the first drawing board. It would be WILDLY ironic and wind up the cherry on this sundae of a movie if it's true.
@@UserUser-ww2nj FALSE... there was NEVER any issue with the Bradley, the movie is totally Hollywood make believe BS. Go watch "LazerPig's" video on this subject if you want the real story about what a mental patient and liar Burton was.
@@swatboy763 I know this, it had a simple 20mm autocannon instead of the 25mm, which had a much more beefy enclosure than what the original gun was mounted on.
@@swatboy763 I am always amazed that people think that stupid Hollywood movies are like "documentaries" and they get their information from them. So many of the 1di0ts making comments in here actually think this movie is true.
What reality? This movie is based upone Burtons bullshit. He was defenatly one of the worst officers to ever enter the pentagon, they reconized this, he did not
A first class movie, right up there with the 'Yes Minister' series, thank you. A real shame about Col Burton being forced to retire. Sometimes real men have to as the Romans put it, "fall on ones sword" as I know from 'practical' experience, & Col Burton was (I hope still is) one such man. I do hope he found a good a for filling life after the great service he performed.
Dude he made most the shit up, this film is based off his book in which he lies multiple times and much of his story can't be backed up by any other source than him
As a Brit I think this is a brilliant film. Especially as you could swap in oh so many British projects, Blue Steel, TSR-2, SA-80 and many many many more projects
Do I believe Department of Defense apologists or do I believe a whistle blower? The military has been lying and covering up for as long as I can remember. I am 81 years old. The military does not respect or trust civilians. Civilians should not respect or trust the military.
@@gordonhaire9206that “whistleblower” was in a group who called the Abrams tank, F-15, and F-22 shit. That “whistleblower” even designed a discount A-10 with only a gun and a radio. That “whistleblower” and his ilk’s live fire test basically dumbs down to destroying a not-tank with a tank-killing weapon. What even is the methodology when you know it will destroy something that isn’t a tank? It’s like trying to study air crashes by putting the damn thing into a shredder and hydraulic press. You learn nothing from it other than it’s dead. So I’ll take the DoD “apologists” on this one.
@@poisonshadow317 Considering what F-22 should had: side looking dishes and FLIR; and what it received: modification of wing to carry external fuel tanks; F-22 is a very very shadow of oneself. How it's going to perform when FOX-3 suddenly behaves like FOX-1? Oh. Nohow. When they jam GPS signal and then jam the missile radar suite, it will be useless without guidance of the fighter. Which won't happen, because when F-22 doing a notch it can't look sideways and guide the missile.
Considering the gov't's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, I wonder if Hollywood would considering making a movie like this about that relationship? Not holding my breath.
I came here to watch Kelsey Grammer...after watching "Miss Willoughby,&The Haunted Bookstore", that I thoroughly enjoyed, I found myself needing more Kelsey Grammer:)
This movie is a superb satire of the "military establishment", & the absurd & bureaucratic "top brass" metalities are spot on accurate, I imagine. The movie may not be entirely accurate, regarding all the problems, cost over runs, & hasty redesign proposals of the Bradley armored vehicle, but I think the movie showcases well the "ignorant (& corrupt) children with power" image of "top level brass", which I suspect is much closer to reality than to fiction.
Yeah but it's based kinda real events, only that the tank was actually good, and the main character irl was a dumbass and today works for Russian propaganda media cause got fired
I remember being 15 when this movie was released on HBO. I love this movie. 'NOW LISTEN TO ME YOU FUCKIN FLY BOY YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT COMBAT!"
@@amedv For run and gun penetration thrusts the M1A1 would find it's place but not with drones, mines and built-up defensive lines. In defensive maneuvers and small insertion attacks the Bradley rules.
@@MrKbtor2 I was talking about a bunch of M1A2s, not three dozen of M1A1s from some junkyard Ukraine actually got. The same applies to upcoming overdue-for-decommission F-16.
@@amedv Doesn't matter what model of Abrams Ukraine deploys. The drones are flown to hit it from above and from rear, which is how Javelin bypasses the frontal armor. Drone doesn't care for Depleted Uranium in the turret sides, cheeks and hull glacis. It hits the roof of the turret on top of ammo compartment or engine compartment. Tank will be immobilized and finished off with a couple more drones or artillery.
I love the fact that some in the comments don't understand that this is a comedy, and continue to defend this tank as if it's the best in the world (probably because it's "made in USA"). Those nitwits would surely be looking for the grave of Sergeant Schumman from Wag the Dog to put flowers on.
My conclusion , from Europe, is quite simple. A movie, revealing a convoluted and devious process, aiming to produce unsafe and useless war vehicles. And this real "Plot" shows us that the US was or is a truly open Society. A flawed democracy? Perhaps, after all human Institutions are flawed. Neverthless , a similar movie exposing corruption at the top of the Armed Forces, might be impossible to produce in a great deal of Countries. Let's hope that such powerful character neither vanishes nor is held in abeyance. Final Note: Somehow, this narrative recalls General Mitchell's demonstration, designed to establish that battleships could be sunk by small Airplanes. The Navy and the Army imposed a Protocol: The Test had to be conducted from a rather High altitude, resorting only to 50 p/ bombs. Under the circumstances, the vessel used as Target was not damsged. Mitchell argued and pleaded with the Army General Chief of Staff, stating that in a real war attack, such a Protocol wouldn't exist. Insisting that the Airr attack should ignore altitude restrictions -- and resort to 1 Thousand pound-Bombs. His request was denied. Neverthless, he implemented the Air attack ignoring the rigid and idiotic rules of engagement. The battleship was sunk. In the aftermath, he ended upon court-martialed and dismissed from the Armed Forces. Exactly like the Officer in this video. Note: Mitchell's Airplanes used in the Test were old, obsolete machines from World War One, and in a state of disrepair. Are Aircraft - Carriers today's battleships? How vulnerable are such Capital Vessels? The US, France, the UK, China and Russia feature Aircraft Carriers in their Fleets. However, the US opperates more than all other Nations por together. Let's hope that they will never be used in Real War Situations. However, if one day push comes to shove, hopefully my concerns shan't be correct. And the US Navy will fully reap the benefits afforded by the Carriers.
The thing is that the actual vehicle depicted in this film isn't bad or unsafe - this view was just propagated by a few idiots that were trying to push their ideas to make something closer to a BMP, which is basically a death trap on tracks (especially earlier versions, probably not so much now). M2's are proven to be really capable in actual conflict, especially in Iraq and Ukraine, where they had chance to fight against their soviet counterparts I think this film got made because it's mainly fiction and as such it's very useful, as it nicely masks the true capabilities of M2
Jokes aside, Bradleys M2A2 ODS delivered to fighting Ukraine, according to Russians, proved to be the nastiest IFW in UAF. Effectiveness is very high (you can find videos of UAF M2 acting as meat grinder on Russian infantry and even standing agains Russian MBT). Bradley can continue task after being hit with several FPV droned, RPGs and even ATGM. Can survive _several_ AT mines without crew loss. Can survive tank direct hit. Crew survivability is VERY high. So, joke is just a part of story.
As a 20 year tanker none of what you said is close to being true. A Bradley hits 1 AT mine and its bye. Several keep dreaming buddy. Tank cant even take several. Can survive tank direct hit. LOL NO it cannot in any way shape or form, That why its called a Bradley NOT A TANK.
Yknow the general guy has a good point about the tests. They literally can’t afford to just blow up everything, so the thing like water in the tank to show if it penetrates and other things like that is a way to not completely blow it up. And leaning about the actual background, yeah I can see why this movie pisses people off
Also a point the movie missed - that sometimes a weapon with minor defects is better than an out of date weapon and the US army had no effective IFV prior to the Bradley which put the troops at a big disadvantage - delaying essential weapons can also get people killed. I mean imagine if the Gulf war was fought only with Abrams and M113's? I think the movie was overly harsh to General Partridge.
@AnzaChannel123 no but he was as dirty as they come. He also lied about every part of the Bradley development process in his book and the film got it even more wrong. And yes a lt col got a lot of kickbacks, just like col McGregor is currently receiving from RT and the russian government. He also didn't fight against the bloated system, he was very much a part of that system. His claim that the us army messed with the test is bs, blowing up a Bradley doesn't tell you anything. Leaving inert ammo and water in the fuel tanks let's them see vulnerable areas. But he was too stupid to understand that. The army realized pretty quickly that he wasn't worth the time he was wasting and opted to transfer him. Finally the Bradley wasn't over budget, it was under budget, and delivered early, and is still considered one of the best ifvs in the world. And no that's not because of him, it's in spite of him. The military never adopted any of his recommendations, never used any of his advice. And Israel has never purchased a single Bradley as they were developing their own ifv at the time. That part of the movie was a lie.
Ok i get your points. But you are accusing another Col .... are your CIA, Military Intelligence, NSA etc are sleeping ? or you are more informed than them somehow ? ;)
Having served in the Armed Forces, Army, and Navy, please tell me how they allowed this story to be realised; it is so true and realistic. Every rank is sitting on its backside, waiting for the next promotion.
that is cause after all those upgrades they realized that they still needed a troop transport that could carry infantry that being said they still are tossing turrets and cannons on the fucking thing
No, it starts of as M113-V2 (APC) and turns into an actual IFW, a new invention at the time, just like the Soviets did with there BMPs. Strykers are wheeled and not tracked.
Putting sand in the shells is just common sense. It tells you if a round would have been affected. In any case you would assume catastrophic damage if ammunition was hit.
The movie says the truth about the Bradley. The current Bradley is not the same as the earlier Bradley manufactured between 1981 to 1988. The post 1988 improvements are thanks to Col. Burton here.
@@michaelotieno6524 no it does not say the truth about anything, most of the stuff in that movie that they made huge deal out are in real life non issue and most of the real issue the Bradley had where never raised by Burton, so no the later design we have of the Bradley is not thanks to Burton.
This movie should be shown to all engineers and planners as to what scope creep is. It is also a textbook presentation of deception, political pork funding, and a complete lack of integrity on part of the general staff. If they can identify it, they'll root it out.
You do realize that this satire based upone a book writne by a phatological liar. Bruton was hated by the Pentagon, becouse he was simply not the brightested man
@@yoschiannik8438 Its undiniable that the Breadley suffered from scope creep. This movie for sure is not 100% fact and plays things up to make a more enjoyable movie. But the troop carrier that came out under armored with turrets and missiles well over budget and time, for sure suffered from scope creep.
@@lordfrz9339 Well there's your first problem you've bought Burton's most ridiculous lie hook, line and sinker. The Bradley was never designed to be a troop carrier. From the very beginning it was an IFV it always had a turrent. In fact going all the way back to the original design brief for what a US IFV should have (this was before anything was actually designed) the US army stated it should have 20mm Autocannon. This was in 1958. The Bradley wasn't designed until the 70's, it was a direct response to the soviet BMP. To claim it's turrent was feature creep is nonsensical. Even the missiles were part of the original Bradley design. The reality is what's shown in the Pentagon wars as the "history" of the bradley is the XM765, It was a competing bid which the US army rejected in favor of the Bradley and in a rather sad and pathetic twist the so called "original design" as depicted in the book and film was actually designed after the Bradley, The XM765 was sold to the dutch and they developed it as the YPR-765. The version without the turret is one of the YPR-765 PRCO-series.
"we fought a revolution so we didn't have to listen to the British anymore". Col. Burton "well, I AM British, so you're gonna have to listen some more".
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Closing Time' by Joseph Heller - a sequel to Catch-22. This film is remarkably cohesive with that storyline. With much finer tolerances and successful tests than the original Bradley program.
Things we already knew, but today is even more pertinent. Some how some way, we have to change the evolution of corruption. Thank you as the movie brings what we know to light in a personal story.
Awesome movie. I was in the Regular Army and worked for the gov for six years and I know how wasteful and ridiculous the process worked. I left for the private sector and never looked back.
When enlisted, I and others had to throw brand new, still in the package, still on the pallet supplies and equipment overboard into the sea, because, as I was told, if we don't "use" it then we won't get more funding than next year. - a very great example that parallels the Idiocracy in this movie.
@FA-Q20-1 30 years ago. A little bit late to care, but after my enlistment I took ROTC in college and that branch had very wasteful aspects too. I'm sure still today it wouldn't be hard to find situations where something is wasteful when the money isn't coming out of their pocket
@@michaeledwards8051 Sure, cool (fake) story bud. I've been in the military less than you but I've never heard from anyone that kind of story. Whoever told you to throw those equipment and supplies must be a saboteur since the army would love to have surplus.
love this movie when it came out in 1998 still love it. look at the Osprey it started in the 1970's against the Soviets lol the B-70 the list goes on the problem The Miltary Industrial Complex.
If Burton and his ilk had been around in WWI, they would have fought tooth & nail to not get tanks at all. "What's wrong with horses ? They're faster, much cheaper and if they brake down, you can still feed them to the men." #ReformerLogic
I'm only 30 minutes into this movie and it's cracking me up! Not because it's outlandish but it's what I'd expect from a bunch of pentagon politicians pretending they are military officers. Thanks for putting this movie up!❤
Look brother, the Bradley turned out OK, however the point of the flick was it was supposed to be an infantry battle taxi…. Get troops from here to there, not a light tank with tank killer capability. We already have tank killing capabilities in the ABRAMS. Obtw I was a tank commander in the 3rd ACR, 10 tanks and 13 Bradley’s.
@@dereklucero5785 the Bradley was an IFV from the start, and anyways APCs including the m113 were used as IFVs doctrinally cause leaving your troops to fend for themselves on the front line is apparently “messed up”
Ex Army here. Read the book. It's real. The movie isn't. I was in Iraq for desert storm. The Bradley was awesome. It wouldn't have been if not for this dude.
This movie makes me think about the Mark 14 torpedo that had a nasty habit of exploding too soon or too late if it didn't made a 180 degree turn after launch and attacked the sub that had launched it. Yet the bureau of ordinance kept on saying that there was nothing wrong with it and that the 'accidents' were caused by the crew, not following protocol. No kidding.
context on Romania: it was an independent state ruled by a communist regime. it was part of the "Soviet block," but that just means it was a member of the Warsaw Pact. the Romanian ammo wasn't Soviet, and you could tell this by the simple fact that the text wasn't cyrilc
The fact is that in those times we have one of the best defense industry in the eastern block with clients in the whole third world, so is very derogatory to describe our ammunition as „bad”. In fact the american troops has captured Ak-47 s stamped „Cugir Factory” in the Middle East from the insurgents in almost perfect condition used by the irakian army since the iranian-irakian war in the 80s . Saddam Hussein was one of our best customers on a long list of african and middle eastern presidents, dictators and revolutionary leaders like Yasser Arafat. On the other hand we have enough good technicians to be able improve our arsenal before and after the revolution of 1989 even with limited means thanks to our research teams and fruitful colaborations with israeli defense industry, one of the best and competitive in the world and partially with the United States. But today we buy as american vassals only your deprecated and overpriced weapon sistems as our sometime formidable defense industry is a hill of scraps thanks to our corrupt politicians.
@@huamokolatok Wrong, Romania did had the worse ammo ever produced, in fact it still has. The 100mm AntiTank round is the worse ammo ever produced, even the armed forces complains about it. TR85 cannon is not able to do much damage because Romania is not able to produce quality ammo. Also, AK ammo is not very good in comparrison with other sorrounding countries.
@@TheBoyar the problem with the TR-85 and its ammo is that... this is a fancy T-55 being pushed forward in 2024. The army simply did not have the budget to get something more advanced. It's a problem of age, not quality. Thankfully, 54 Abrams M1A2 are coming to Romania in 2026. Regarding Cugir ammo in Iraq: communist Romania produced great *export* goods. What was kept for internal use was... whatever was too bad to sell.
@@TheBoyar Today maybe yes, because our defense industry was already sold to scrap and we have no capabilities to produce as in the past. But in the communist era was different. And even with the scarce resources we have we were able to modernize our Migs 21 and Puma helicopters and produce one supersonic fighter, Hawk for training and attack on soil. When you import special powders from Serbia is natural you aren t capable to produce quality ammunition anymore. And our tanks constructed after old soviet era models are already obsolete so is enough that they could function, and so is the armaments of the infantry. We aren t able to develop an original assault rifle, only a pistol imitated after the Jericho produced in some 10.000 pieces distributed to local police and constabulary forces. What we have new and in almost good condition are bought for high prices from our foreign masters from NATO.
This movie is a criticism of *the process* of design by committee. A lot of bradley fans in the comments trying to defend it in particular, you're missing the point. The bradley, in its modern iteration as an infantry fighting vehicle is ok. But the 'design by comittie' objectively failed in several key ereas: 1.) since bradley is an IFV and not an APC, the m113 is still in service. 2.) since the Bradley was meant to be able to float, the armor was too thin to stop soviet 14.5mm machinegun fire (and later had to be up-armored). 3.) the bradley was too heavy to float. 4.) it took *18 years* to design the thing.
In Australia there is a saying that goes like this: A platypus is a duck designed by committee, I have also heard t say that a camel is a horse designed by committee.
@@ztheletter5296 Why you russians should be even interested in inimical Hollywood movies at all?)) Go look for the correct Z-movies made in ruzzia - "dyadya vania" bs or something)
Sure, it doesn't make sense on paper, but the bradley has proven itself in combat since the Gulf War. If you dont believe it go watch the video of a bradley turing a t72 into a spinning top 😂
That's because the vehicle made sense on paper, it's just that Burton is a two faced liar - he describes initial Bradley design as a light and speedy armored battle taxi and himself as a fresh and naive but idealistic man, meanwhile Bradley according to every non-secret military document was designed as US response to BMP meaning a light tank that carries troops and abandonment of idea of APC for IFV doctrine while Burton was an officer working in procurement for over a decade and receiving multuple kickbacks from arms manufacturers, retiring as a miliionaire - he retired preciselt because his battle taxi design presented as intial Bradley design was rejected and the design in the movie does not make sense on paper because movie is based on a fraudulent representation of events.
Just found this good movie on military waste and self delusion. The corrected version of the Bradley did well but it’s not what was had in mind first design time. I remember ricocheting off this kind of ministry foolishness myself when serving.
It brings up some good points. However, it's also important to realize that this is based on a book written by the totally-not-disinterested Burton, himself. My guess is that it's mostly true, with some allowances for his self interest and a few extra devil horns scrawled on the pictures of his enemies.
Scratch thet true part and reppace it with bullshit. Its not all made up, but basicly evreything is sceward to make Burton look good and the Pentagon bad. The opposite is usually true
I gotta laugh at all the people in the comments absolutely certain that Burton was Satan incarnate. Saying everything he said had zero evidence to back it up, while having zero evidence on the contrary themselves. Honestly, all it took was a quick look on Wikipedia to see that the vehicle took almost 20 years to develop to know that there was truth with what Burton said. It doesn't matter to me what small details were over- or under-exaggerated here or there; I can still spot bureaucratic issues when I see them - so just like you said, it's clear that this is Mostly True with Embellishments. Edit: I also say this as a fan of the Bradley. I think its production form (especially with regards to the further revisions) is excellent and it excels at filling a niche - a niche that is not the original one it set out to fill. I also think that many of the commenters are lashing out specifically becuase they, too, are fans, and take the movie as a hit piece that's anti-Bradley. Specifically without understanding the nuance between the in-development Bradley that's depicted, versus the final result we had for deployment in the Middle East.
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
"No one goes to Fresno for a vacation, Colonel." I'm from Fresno and they nailed that correctly.
The wasy they stitched this movie together is brilliant.
After watching the movie, I am glad that the military didn't take reformers seriously.
Why do you say that?
@@DASCO2136 Because they're an absolute joke. They believe that the the US military should use old and outdated equipment to solve modern military problems.
Imagine believing that the M1's engine is dangerous to troops that walk behind it because it would burn them to death, the ammo is dangerous cause it's combustible just like the M551 and my personal favorite according to Pierre Spree the M48 was more survivable than the M1 because the Army never did any live fire tests. In the aviation side of things, they're the ones who proposed that the A-10 shouldn't have any radar, radar warning receivers nor a Constantly Computed Impact Point (CCIP). Same goes with the F-15 and F-16 except they wanted it to be a gun only aircraft because missiles are unreliable.
James Burton (main character in book and film) proposed the idea of the Blitzfighter which is similar to the A-10. But when his superiors said that it should get a radar he said no basically because according to him radar can't differentiate a tank to a tree or a car filled with refugees. Also, when the army was making the A1 to improve survivability he suggested that the Bradley should put all of its ammo and fuel outside the vehicle and during the Army's High Survivability Test Bed Program the Army moved the water supply to the center of the vehicle so that if it got hit and there was an internal fire the water would put it out and he was outraged because according to him that's cheating apparently.
I wished we had we are in a world where the Russians were stopped by fucking Maxim machine guns and cold war RPGs while our super high tech wonder weapon tanks can't even cross trenches and anti tank ditches that ww1 generals would see no difference in from the war they just left.
@@zeo-pe5sgfound the Russian bot
@@Woodartifact388 why you booing me I'm right. Last I checked the whole war has devolved into trench warfare and artillery duels with drones and attack Helicopters.
The mix of comedy and seriousness kept me focused the whole time while watching this movie. All of the cast fill their roles strongly, but I would like to single out Kelsey Grammer as General Partridge. He is able to create a cunning character here, who is probably a military leader, but could just as well be a manipulative CEO, as we know in the corperate world.
Brilliant movie, even if it's a joke or not it still better than most bs movies that hollywood makes nowadays. 80s and 90s rocking till this day because of things like this, being a comedy, drama or action movie, they were all high quality and very entertain to watch; Now you barely find a good movie from "top tier" studios.
Cary Elwes being English did a damned good job of playing an American officer. I hope he does more like this movie.
I enjoy this movie inspite of it being "A True Story" its a funny caricature of the procurement process.
This is just me and its with all movies like this and it suspends my disbelief, and yes its a nit pick, it looks EXTREMLY Southern California.
'You can't afford a door like that" gets me every time
😂😊
A similar film could be made about the Boeing 737 except their emphasis is on net profits; damn safety, full speed ahead (putting profits ahead of quality inspections & safety, to keep cash flow high).
Only in the case of Boeing it would not have to be full of lies
Can't stop watching this film.
Just like every Project! and not just the USA, and Uncle sam.
That any of them work at all, is a miracle, and they could have been so much better, and cheaper if done right in the first place.
Thanks for putting this film up.
Fantastic movie! Kelsey Grammar and Cary Elwes at their best!
anyone else here from the mail truck video
Yep, had to look for "tank design movie".
Yes
Yip
Aye sir
Me
Having been a grunt in the Army when this was going on it brought back memories. Never did get in a unit with Bradleys. Just fixed up the ole M 113s for turn in then left for another duty station and did it again. I had a buddy who's Father did these kinds of tests, both were mechanical wizards who knew their stuff. This movies sounds like my buddy's dad's stories.
This movie is in fact a documentary based on a book
@@a.randomjack6661 just a heads up, Col. James Burton is a professional bull crapper and it was proved that 90% of this movie based on his book either didnt happen or didnt happen as described
Cary Elwes is such a likable good actor.
I think if they made a movie about the Sgt York DIVAD system, it would make this movie look tame in comparison.
Being as how nothing in the movie is real, yeah I guess so. You realize the entire movie is total BS... right?
@@_Coffee4Closers Can you MIC ball washers quit spazzing out for ten seconds?
Kelsey Grammer was absolutely fantastic in this movie.
1:31:31 #goirish
Yo, I remember that lego brick!
Lt. Col. John Burton, Lou Elizondo, David Grush - the list goes on and on...
i wonder how the director felt when he found out that 90% of the events in this movie didn't happen the way Col. James Burton described them.
Is that what the Generals in the US military told you. Lamooo
@@mrjohnsonjohn no because James Burton is a notoriously pathological liar. The whole reason he got reassigned in the first place was that he submitted a really retarded design for an aircraft and when the Air Force told him to fuck off he got assigned to the Bradley project with an axe to grind. He’s famously reclusive as he refuses to give any interviews or any comments to the press
There was no need for him to find it out afterwards. Have a look at 01:41:28 .
I saw Kelsey Grammer and thought this was gonna be a "Down Periscope" situation. Gat _damn!_ this hit harder than I was expecting! Glad I watched!
Definably a fun watch even if a lot of it is wrong or incorrect.
What was wrong or incorrect?
@@jasonbourne1596burtons “tests” were BS and not proper for the testing of new equipment, and burton himself is mischaracterised as a well meaning officer as opposed to his real life equivalents high levels of corruption and ties to the ‘reformers’
From a British perspective... NOTHING HAS CHANGED !! Example: the £1-million each British Foxhound patrol vehicle, signed into service in 2012 Afghanistan despite it failing hot weather trials. Generals & government ministers were so busy with that corrupt on 11 Sept 2012 (run fake trials on Camp Bastion airfield) that they forgot to guard Camp Bastion's airfield. On 14 September the Taliban attacked the airfield, killed two US Marines & destroyed $400-million of kit - but all failures were covered up in subsequent inquiries, nobody British officers were held to account & the Foxhound continued into service. In 2017 it was reported that the Foxhound was still breaking down in hot weather - the fault was never fixed & it did cost British & allied personnel their lives. 'The Pentagon Wars' is a BRILLIANT film, exposing the corrupt profiteers that still populate our higher commands - hats off to all involved.
Did the Foxhound have an insane RAF Colonel who did not know how testing worked and when people tried to explain it to him he yelled "conspiracy."
Pentagon wars is a comedy film that should not be taken seriously
Correction: The Pentagon is a comedy that can't be taken seriously
@@anthonycheaford1962 from a suggestion to indisputable law
I'm worrying about NGAD
While many hated how the story was far from factual, I still liked the movie for accurately portrays the chaotic mess of government bureaucracy and its politics. I think Kelsey Grammer did his part very well. Yes the so called "reformers" getting flamed lately for many of their dubious claim and controversy, but we have to understand that this is a movie not a documentary, and they shouldn't always be accurate and stick to the real story.
Initial, I thought it was accurate. But after reading up on, it, turns out it was extremely inaccurate and very one-sided.
The “hero” of the movie had his own theory of how the military should be run. Meanwhile, the Bradley still in service.
The movie is very accurate, it is only the current military fan boys who lack any idea what the movie is about.
Simply, the initial Bradley manufactured before 1988 was a lemon, it was until the live fire test Col. Burton insisted upon was the Bradley improved with more armor protection.
Col. Burton was worried about the survivability rate of the soldiers if the Bradley got hit not if an anti-tank weapon could pierce the armor of the Bradley.
@@michaelotieno6524
No, the movie is very inaccurate. I actually research that after I watched it. The “hero” of the movie had his own agenda. The stuff like this happened, I’m sure. But not like this. If you take things that happen and pretend it happened on this program then that’s called inaccurate.
By the way, the Bradley still in service
@@michaelotieno6524 and you do understand the conundrum facing the Army, right? That an IFV can only be so armored and protected before it becomes as heavy and as expensive as a main battle tank.
This entire movie is the film version of “Hah, I portrayed you as the soyjack and myself as the Gigachad, I win” courtesy of the ‘Reformists.’
Unlike other Airforce colonels, I can speak with an English accent
I served in the Army from 1983-1986. I was stationed at Ft. Ord,CA when the Sgt. York was being tested. I trained on M113's I never saw the Bradley or the M1. This movie is very interesting.
I also served that same time frame & at good old foggy fort Ord. Heavy field artillery King of battle. This movie supprises me not.
The fuel tanks being filled with water and the ammunition being filled with sand was to show which ones were most vulnerable. If the entire vehicle exploded, it would be difficult to tell which one did.
They also stripped the dummies so they could douse the uniforms with water first. When they did the test, they could see which uniforms were about to ignite without them all burning to ash.
Venerable? Like this? Accorded a great deal of respect, especially because of age, wisdom, or character
@@Flea-Flicker vulnerable. He meant vulnerable
@@Flea-Flicker autocorrect is retarted and didn't work
Meanwhile, Burton: That's cheating!
I remember all the controversy surrounding this vehicle. Turned out to be very successful and well liked by it's crews. The Ukrainians love them.
I suspect that the Bradley is the most popular piece of armour to end up in Ukraine, but it's addition to the Western armour graveyard in Moscow is probably it's most impressive gig...
@@psalmno.51 At least there is something left to display other than a charred husk.
@@bobwoods1302 Agreed... they all burn and the Abrams in Moscow hadn't even been cleaned up before it was put on display! In fact, the video segment I watched showed the channel author get his hands dirty as he touched it. Armour of all kinds ends up burnt in Ukraine, including the "invincible" turtle tank, which is almost impossible to stop!
@@psalmno.51 Russian tank turrets have more hours in the air than the Russian air force. 😂 Slava Ukraine.
@@bobwoods1302 I have no idea what you mean, but your reply sounds like a snappy soundbite. Have you watched the (free on RUclips) foreign language film White Tiger? If you haven't, may I recommend it? It has English subtitles but looks at the life of a tank crew in WW2, among other things. Spoiler alert... the T-34 doesn't do so well in the film!
A lovely reminder for everyone that the reformers (which burton is a part of) don’t understand what role the Bradley (and other modern equipment) is supposed to play, and measure the effectiveness of an new system with the same Metric as the old, despite the fact that warfare changed and the new equipment plays a now different role
Lessons in Nam don't apply to a post BVR world
1:43:40 Great movie!! I was a 19D cavalry scout during the time of this movie. So many things ring true about the attitudes of Army officers during this time period.
My dad was a fighter pilot during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Then served at SAC and the Pentagon and retired a Colonel. I remember being in the Pentagon quite a few times as a kid back in the late 60's and early 70's. The floors go up in a real gentle spiral. Even back then there was a robot that would deliver mail down the hallway. Also there were reliefs in the walls. Dioramas of finely built model ships and planes behind glass. he was part of designing the F-111 at that time. Service had always been stressful and he drank alot. This was very enlightening as he died thirty years ago so I can't ask him about it, but I bet it was the same a few years back in his time. He retired in '72. We even went to see the military band play at the Watergate Hotel on New Years of that infamous year.
"War is a Racket" by two-time Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC (R). If you liked this movie, you should read it.
The first weapon, the heat seeking missle, combined with the second, the Pave Way, was pretty much the Javelin in it's infancy. 🧐😬🙄😶🌫️
Procurement. Never an easy task.
As a comedy, this is an okay movie. As a depiction of the actual story - it's bo11ocks.
For starers, why an APC or an IFV even should be able to sustain an anti-tank round. Even tanks rarely do...
Not a Tow 2 ..... but atleast a RPG.
@@AnzaChannel123 Yes, yes... Add empirical evidence, for instance: all those Bradleys operating in Ukraine, that usually turn Ruzzians into homogenate, and often can stand up to their tanks. All with absolutely excellent survivability for an IFV and I think we are done here.
In recent years, it's been discovered that Burton lied about a lot of things that are portrayed here. It's frustrating because Burton's approach involves playing with people's emotions. People like underdogs fighting the system, and he knows that all too well. Few examples.
-The MICV program that led to the Bradley was always intended to have a turret. One of the early proposals was more or less a modified M113 that had a turret.
-The Bradley program was actually around 4 billion UNDERBUDGET when Burton was involved in the program. This was out of a total project budget of 12 billion, as was discussed during the real-life hearing (which is portrayed late in the film).
-Burton was the one who came up with the Joint Live Fire Test Program, in which he intended to destroy Bradleys. This was opposed because a.) he would be covering ground already covered and b.) it would be a costly program compared to point-by-point tests. Burton decided to see this as evidence of a cover-up.
Other things, like the bit about water in the gas tanks, are misrepresented to make him look like the good guy. This shows vulnerabilities without completely destroying a vehicle or rendering it useless. The film also plays on emotions by making you think that the M2 needs to withstand anything and everything. And that anyone who doesn't agree with this doesn't care about the troops.
So why did Burton go on this crusade, anyways? There's evidence to suggest that Burton was taking his anger out on the military for rejecting an aircraft proposal he drew up. He prided himself in being against things like infared, radar, and other such things. He was told the aircraft would at least need a radar, which he proclaimed couldn't tell the difference between a tank and a VW bus full of civvies (spoiler alert: things like radar and thermals allow you to make that distinction). So when his idea was turned down, he reacted like a kid being told to eat their vegetables.
This isn't a story about exposing corruption and fighting for the men in the field. This is a fable spun by a scorned man looking to get even, consequences be damned, using manipulation and half-truths.
It's like the Death of Stalin - dramatized, and best looked at as a good example of politicking.
Both movies are not a documentary.
Yep, bullshit. Still doesn't change that the US military overspends like crazy and has to an increasing degree pursued idiotic or at least badly thought out and non-dedicated designs, due to the politicking and lucrativeness of a war economy for a country that doesn't itself have to directly go to war.
The good end of it is in fact represented by things like the Bradley and the F-35; Vehicles and pieces of equipment which after a whole lot of brute forcing and in combination with intense testing and first-round field fixes end up as decently functional combat hardware. But that's the _good_ end of the spectrum. On the other end you have things like UCP camo, the Osprey, torpedoes that consistently fail to perform, countless cases of radar and lidar design failures... Usually smaller things, granted - but it all adds up.
That's the problem. That's what ol' Dwight was partially warning about. The fundamental incentive of the Military Industrial Complex is to be an inefficiency maximizer. And while it may be that eventually enough of the stuff that gets turned out just by sheer amount of shit thrown at the wall passes muster... Well, when e.g. the CV90 can measure up to the Bradley or even by small measures outperform it, that's not a big whopper; But when put in the perspective that it was designed, tested and built by a marginal back-end nation in about half the time and at a _fraction_ of the cost... The comparison that springs to mind is Honda, Suzuki and all the others getting beat by Ducati in MotoGP. When they're giant industrials with billions dedicated to racing development and experience from even more fields to pull, while the other is a hard-run comparatively boutique shop with less than a twelfth of the budget.
The problem is the waste. Which is in itself a two-way street. Because firstly that money goes towards that churning machine of turning around metal uselessly, seeing as it will often simply end up on the scrap heap - which is not the harm in itself really; It's called a deterrence, and it does get recovered and sponsor some actual production and engineering and recovery jobs and turnout. But it does do harm by over-promoting the unmeritorious and boosting politicals and agendas that couldn't work without the oodles of waste cash and sleaze that it enables. And secondly, that money then detracts from or crowds out the stuff and the people that is actually meritorious, more focused on pure engineering.
That's the issue that some kind of film _should_ have been made about. It's just that it would be hard to film or get any sort of consistent red thread through it all, to make some kind of tie-in subject or project to center it all around for a narrative. Not to mention it would be difficult just to get some people _engaged._ "What are you talking about? We already know the military waste so much money!"
Instead we got this bit of garbage.
@@johnw1954There are some serious differences in those two movies tho - Death of Stalin is a full blown comedy, a lot of historical facts were changed or condensed in time to better fit the movie format. But overall the movie does a very good job portraying the terror Stalin posed and the political climate and power struggle which occured after his death - of course in a exaggerated, comical way.
Pentagon wars on the other hand is just straight up lies tho, fully made to discredit the military and push a false narrative.
but it does need to withstand AT LEAST a $30 60 year old handheld anti tank rocket that almost everyone has, and because of the reformer efforts it did. this was partly the reason for the success of the gulf war with so little American casualties.
Love all those black and white images at the start
That´s my favourite part of the movie
Hilarious no matter if the story is true or not. If it is true it is so unbelievably horrible for the victims. Great actors. I loved this movie.
Just remember ...
Two of these tag-teamed a T90 and knocked it out with just the 25mm guns alone.
Ukraine has lost dozens of them hit by Lancet 3 drones. 25 thousadn dolalr vs 5 million ones.
@@pabloaguila6344 What do you price a life out to be?
@@Birdy890depends on the life.
@@pabloaguila6344and the crew survived, unlike literally any Russian armored vehicle ever…
This reminds me 100% of software development... to the T. This is my worst nightmare of a project.
“No one goes to Fresno for a vacation, colonel.” 😂
Who else checks the comments to see if it’s the right movie ?
I read somewhere that they actually were looking at designing a dedicated troop carrier variant of the Bradley, increasing it's troop capacity, as intended from the first drawing board. It would be WILDLY ironic and wind up the cherry on this sundae of a movie if it's true.
I'm watching this in Ukraine . Glad it turned out 100 percent better than the original
@@UserUser-ww2nj FALSE... there was NEVER any issue with the Bradley, the movie is totally Hollywood make believe BS. Go watch "LazerPig's" video on this subject if you want the real story about what a mental patient and liar Burton was.
Bradley was designed from the start as an IFV, specifically to have a turret.
@@swatboy763 I know this, it had a simple 20mm autocannon instead of the 25mm, which had a much more beefy enclosure than what the original gun was mounted on.
@@swatboy763 I am always amazed that people think that stupid Hollywood movies are like "documentaries" and they get their information from them. So many of the 1di0ts making comments in here actually think this movie is true.
Well done. Humor and deceipt enough to keep interest through the movie. And a good dash of reality.
What reality? This movie is based upone Burtons bullshit. He was defenatly one of the worst officers to ever enter the pentagon, they reconized this, he did not
A first class movie, right up there with the 'Yes Minister' series, thank you.
A real shame about Col Burton being forced to retire.
Sometimes real men have to as the Romans put it, "fall on ones sword" as I know from 'practical' experience, & Col Burton was (I hope still is) one such man.
I do hope he found a good a for filling life after the great service he performed.
He wasn't forced. The air force transfered him, but he refused and decided to retire.
Dude he made most the shit up, this film is based off his book in which he lies multiple times and much of his story can't be backed up by any other source than him
As a Brit I think this is a brilliant film. Especially as you could swap in oh so many British projects, Blue Steel, TSR-2, SA-80 and many many many more projects
Billion with a B gets me all the time because it is exactly what IKE warned everyone about in his farewell speech about the MIC.
You tubers Chieftain and Spookston have very good videos debunking this. Lazerpig has a video debunkinf the whole fighter mafia/reformer lot.
Do I believe Department of Defense apologists or do I believe a whistle blower? The military has been lying and covering up for as long as I can remember. I am 81 years old. The military does not respect or trust civilians. Civilians should not respect or trust the military.
@@gordonhaire9206 Not all "Whistle Blowers" are created equal
and Burton sure wasn't the brilliant, bright-eyed hero he made himself in his own book.
@@gordonhaire9206that “whistleblower” was in a group who called the Abrams tank, F-15, and F-22 shit. That “whistleblower” even designed a discount A-10 with only a gun and a radio. That “whistleblower” and his ilk’s live fire test basically dumbs down to destroying a not-tank with a tank-killing weapon. What even is the methodology when you know it will destroy something that isn’t a tank? It’s like trying to study air crashes by putting the damn thing into a shredder and hydraulic press. You learn nothing from it other than it’s dead. So I’ll take the DoD “apologists” on this one.
@@poisonshadow317 butthurt much ?
@@poisonshadow317 Considering what F-22 should had: side looking dishes and FLIR; and what it received: modification of wing to carry external fuel tanks; F-22 is a very very shadow of oneself.
How it's going to perform when FOX-3 suddenly behaves like FOX-1? Oh. Nohow. When they jam GPS signal and then jam the missile radar suite, it will be useless without guidance of the fighter. Which won't happen, because when F-22 doing a notch it can't look sideways and guide the missile.
This is the best performance from Cary Elwes I've seen. I would love to see him in more dramatic and serious roles.
Have you seen Burning at Both Ends? Brilliant performance from him in a solid dramatic role.
Considering the gov't's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, I wonder if Hollywood would considering making a movie like this about that relationship? Not holding my breath.
That would be a good one!
I came here to watch Kelsey Grammer...after watching "Miss Willoughby,&The Haunted Bookstore", that I thoroughly enjoyed, I found myself needing more Kelsey Grammer:)
"Down periscope" is another great military one with Kelsey.
In 2024, the Bradley works well anyway.
This movie is a superb satire of the "military establishment", & the absurd & bureaucratic "top brass" metalities are spot on accurate, I imagine.
The movie may not be entirely accurate, regarding all the problems, cost over runs, & hasty redesign proposals of the Bradley armored vehicle, but I think the movie showcases well the "ignorant (& corrupt) children with power" image of "top level brass", which I suspect is much closer to reality than to fiction.
Why are people in the comments taking it so seriously? It's a movie. Lighten up people. Pretend your parents loved you!
Yeah but it's based kinda real events, only that the tank was actually good, and the main character irl was a dumbass and today works for Russian propaganda media cause got fired
@@RogueBeatsARGIt’s an IFV, not a tank.
@@matthewjones39 I know, was generalizing
No.
Nothing much changed - greed and ego still rule the day!
The blooper clips of early tanks at the beginning of this movie are hilarious ... Great movie.
no one told the Russians the Bradley was supposed to be BAD. they might still be alive if they knew
Great movie, perfect cast, thanks a lot GEM.
No good deed goes unpunished
"The men will have to wear the missiles as hats."
😂😂😂😂
I remember being 15 when this movie was released on HBO. I love this movie. 'NOW LISTEN TO ME YOU FUCKIN FLY BOY YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT COMBAT!"
Literally the only part that is true. Burton knew nothing about combat.
@@whyhatholman3783the entire movie is satire bud
The Ukrainians love the hell out of it!
They would rather get a bunch of M1A2s instead, but beggars can't be choosers.
@@amedv For run and gun penetration thrusts the M1A1 would find it's place but not with drones, mines and built-up defensive lines. In defensive maneuvers and small insertion attacks the Bradley rules.
@@MrKbtor2 I was talking about a bunch of M1A2s, not three dozen of M1A1s from some junkyard Ukraine actually got. The same applies to upcoming overdue-for-decommission F-16.
That's because it is the best IFV on the planet, that movie is a totally made up LIE!
@@amedv Doesn't matter what model of Abrams Ukraine deploys. The drones are flown to hit it from above and from rear, which is how Javelin bypasses the frontal armor. Drone doesn't care for Depleted Uranium in the turret sides, cheeks and hull glacis. It hits the roof of the turret on top of ammo compartment or engine compartment. Tank will be immobilized and finished off with a couple more drones or artillery.
ever since i saw this movie a few years ago this theme plays in my head at work alot lol
I love the fact that some in the comments don't understand that this is a comedy, and continue to defend this tank as if it's the best in the world (probably because it's "made in USA").
Those nitwits would surely be looking for the grave of Sergeant Schumman from Wag the Dog to put flowers on.
My conclusion , from Europe, is quite simple.
A movie, revealing a convoluted and devious process, aiming to produce unsafe and useless war vehicles.
And this real "Plot" shows us that the US was or is a truly open Society.
A flawed democracy?
Perhaps, after all human Institutions are flawed.
Neverthless , a similar movie exposing corruption at the top of the Armed Forces, might be impossible to produce in a great deal of Countries.
Let's hope that such powerful character neither vanishes nor is held in abeyance.
Final Note:
Somehow, this narrative recalls General Mitchell's demonstration, designed to establish that battleships could be sunk by small Airplanes.
The Navy and the Army imposed a Protocol:
The Test had to be conducted from a rather High altitude, resorting only to 50 p/ bombs.
Under the circumstances, the vessel used as Target was not damsged.
Mitchell argued and pleaded with the Army General Chief of Staff, stating that in a real war attack, such a Protocol wouldn't exist.
Insisting that the Airr attack should ignore altitude restrictions -- and resort to 1 Thousand pound-Bombs.
His request was denied.
Neverthless, he implemented the Air attack ignoring the rigid and idiotic rules of engagement.
The battleship was sunk.
In the aftermath, he ended upon court-martialed and dismissed from the Armed Forces.
Exactly like the Officer in this video.
Note: Mitchell's Airplanes used in the Test were old, obsolete machines from World War One, and in a state of disrepair.
Are Aircraft - Carriers today's battleships?
How vulnerable are such Capital Vessels?
The US, France, the UK, China and Russia feature Aircraft Carriers in their Fleets.
However, the US opperates more than all other Nations por together.
Let's hope that they will never be used in Real War Situations.
However, if one day push comes to shove, hopefully my concerns shan't be correct.
And the US Navy will fully reap the benefits afforded by the Carriers.
The thing is that the actual vehicle depicted in this film isn't bad or unsafe - this view was just propagated by a few idiots that were trying to push their ideas to make something closer to a BMP, which is basically a death trap on tracks (especially earlier versions, probably not so much now). M2's are proven to be really capable in actual conflict, especially in Iraq and Ukraine, where they had chance to fight against their soviet counterparts
I think this film got made because it's mainly fiction and as such it's very useful, as it nicely masks the true capabilities of M2
As soon as I saw this I put it on.I first saw it on HBO when it first came out.Just as funny and relevant now.❤😂
Amanda Waller was really chill early in her career.
Jokes aside, Bradleys M2A2 ODS delivered to fighting Ukraine, according to Russians, proved to be the nastiest IFW in UAF. Effectiveness is very high (you can find videos of UAF M2 acting as meat grinder on Russian infantry and even standing agains Russian MBT). Bradley can continue task after being hit with several FPV droned, RPGs and even ATGM. Can survive _several_ AT mines without crew loss. Can survive tank direct hit. Crew survivability is VERY high.
So, joke is just a part of story.
As a 20 year tanker none of what you said is close to being true. A Bradley hits 1 AT mine and its bye. Several keep dreaming buddy. Tank cant even take several. Can survive tank direct hit. LOL NO it cannot in any way shape or form, That why its called a Bradley NOT A TANK.
Yknow the general guy has a good point about the tests. They literally can’t afford to just blow up everything, so the thing like water in the tank to show if it penetrates and other things like that is a way to not completely blow it up.
And leaning about the actual background, yeah I can see why this movie pisses people off
Also a point the movie missed - that sometimes a weapon with minor defects is better than an out of date weapon and the US army had no effective IFV prior to the Bradley which put the troops at a big disadvantage - delaying essential weapons can also get people killed. I mean imagine if the Gulf war was fought only with Abrams and M113's? I think the movie was overly harsh to General Partridge.
Ifv not tank.
The Bradley was already way over delayed and over budget. What are you talking about?
@@flashgordon6670 LMAO, bradley was under budget. the program costed around 8 billion, while 12 billion was the expected cost
@@flashgordon6670The Bradley was under budget. Don’t use a comedy movie from the 80s as a source.
The Bradley had its set backs but it turned out great.
Burton had been working in weapons procurement for over a decade at this point and was known to have pushed his own projects forward for kickbacks.
You mean a Lt Col had more kickbacks than the Generals .... lol.
The fact that he was retired ... explains all.
@AnzaChannel123 no but he was as dirty as they come. He also lied about every part of the Bradley development process in his book and the film got it even more wrong. And yes a lt col got a lot of kickbacks, just like col McGregor is currently receiving from RT and the russian government.
He also didn't fight against the bloated system, he was very much a part of that system. His claim that the us army messed with the test is bs, blowing up a Bradley doesn't tell you anything. Leaving inert ammo and water in the fuel tanks let's them see vulnerable areas. But he was too stupid to understand that. The army realized pretty quickly that he wasn't worth the time he was wasting and opted to transfer him.
Finally the Bradley wasn't over budget, it was under budget, and delivered early, and is still considered one of the best ifvs in the world. And no that's not because of him, it's in spite of him. The military never adopted any of his recommendations, never used any of his advice. And Israel has never purchased a single Bradley as they were developing their own ifv at the time. That part of the movie was a lie.
Ok i get your points. But you are accusing another Col .... are your CIA, Military Intelligence, NSA etc are sleeping ? or you are more informed than them somehow ? ;)
Having served in the Armed Forces, Army, and Navy, please tell me how they allowed this story to be realised; it is so true and realistic. Every rank is sitting on its backside, waiting for the next promotion.
This movie is actually mostly lies.
it is funny that the Bradley starts off as the striker. Then 40 years later, we have the striker again.
that is cause after all those upgrades they realized that they still needed a troop transport that could carry infantry
that being said they still are tossing turrets and cannons on the fucking thing
No, it starts of as M113-V2 (APC) and turns into an actual IFW, a new invention at the time, just like the Soviets did with there BMPs. Strykers are wheeled and not tracked.
This is a comedy not real life. I was at LLNL and we developed weaponry back in the 80s that is still used today.
Certainly, certainly...But did you use them personally?
@@yvesmorin2272look at Ukraine right now I am say those weapons are certainly being used.
A gem of a movie, funny and scary.. even more surprised that I'd never heard of it, thoroughly enjoyed it, thank you!
Putting sand in the shells is just common sense. It tells you if a round would have been affected. In any case you would assume catastrophic damage if ammunition was hit.
It’s a good movie, despite all the misinformation and lies about the bradley, also a great satire on government and pentagon politics.
The movie says the truth about the Bradley. The current Bradley is not the same as the earlier Bradley manufactured between 1981 to 1988. The post 1988 improvements are thanks to Col. Burton here.
@@michaelotieno6524 no it does not say the truth about anything, most of the stuff in that movie that they made huge deal out are in real life non issue and most of the real issue the Bradley had where never raised by Burton, so no the later design we have of the Bradley is not thanks to Burton.
@@michaelotieno6524 Nope, it mostly lies about the Bradley - full of misinformation.
Kelsey Grammer was perfect for this roll😅
This movie should be shown to all engineers and planners as to what scope creep is. It is also a textbook presentation of deception, political pork funding, and a complete lack of integrity on part of the general staff. If they can identify it, they'll root it out.
You do realize that this satire based upone a book writne by a phatological liar. Bruton was hated by the Pentagon, becouse he was simply not the brightested man
@@yoschiannik8438Nah man, If the pentagon hates you is bcs you are telling some absurd facts!
"Not the brightest man," you say? Yeah, I'd cover up by slandering the messenger too. In fact, I'm sure that you're not the brightest. See how easy?
@@yoschiannik8438 Its undiniable that the Breadley suffered from scope creep. This movie for sure is not 100% fact and plays things up to make a more enjoyable movie. But the troop carrier that came out under armored with turrets and missiles well over budget and time, for sure suffered from scope creep.
@@lordfrz9339 Well there's your first problem you've bought Burton's most ridiculous lie hook, line and sinker. The Bradley was never designed to be a troop carrier. From the very beginning it was an IFV it always had a turrent. In fact going all the way back to the original design brief for what a US IFV should have (this was before anything was actually designed) the US army stated it should have 20mm Autocannon. This was in 1958. The Bradley wasn't designed until the 70's, it was a direct response to the soviet BMP. To claim it's turrent was feature creep is nonsensical. Even the missiles were part of the original Bradley design.
The reality is what's shown in the Pentagon wars as the "history" of the bradley is the XM765, It was a competing bid which the US army rejected in favor of the Bradley and in a rather sad and pathetic twist the so called "original design" as depicted in the book and film was actually designed after the Bradley, The XM765 was sold to the dutch and they developed it as the YPR-765. The version without the turret is one of the YPR-765 PRCO-series.
"we fought a revolution so we didn't have to listen to the British anymore".
Col. Burton "well, I AM British, so you're gonna have to listen some more".
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Closing Time' by Joseph Heller - a sequel to Catch-22. This film is remarkably cohesive with that storyline. With much finer tolerances and successful tests than the original Bradley program.
Things we already knew, but today is even more pertinent. Some how some way, we have to change the evolution of corruption. Thank you as the movie brings what we know to light in a personal story.
Absolutely brilliant documentary on military development and procurement. The only surprise is that Boeing were not involved.
If you were familiar with the slap on the back revolving door, the names are there
just working for Lockheed
Dude, this is a satire... It's a mockery of lies Burton told in his book...
Awesome movie. I was in the Regular Army and worked for the gov for six years and I know how wasteful and ridiculous the process worked. I left for the private sector and never looked back.
This movie is so stupid 😭 I love it
When enlisted, I and others had to throw brand new, still in the package, still on the pallet supplies and equipment overboard into the sea, because, as I was told, if we don't "use" it then we won't get more funding than next year.
- a very great example that parallels the Idiocracy in this movie.
@FA-Q20-1 30 years ago. A little bit late to care, but after my enlistment I took ROTC in college and that branch had very wasteful aspects too. I'm sure still today it wouldn't be hard to find situations where something is wasteful when the money isn't coming out of their pocket
@@michaeledwards8051 Sure, cool (fake) story bud. I've been in the military less than you but I've never heard from anyone that kind of story. Whoever told you to throw those equipment and supplies must be a saboteur since the army would love to have surplus.
Kelsey is a genius at being a prick in this.
The satire in this movie is gold
Winning wars does not pay the bills, sustained wars pay the bills
Exactly. If one looks like it will come to an end another one is already being started.
love this movie when it came out in 1998 still love it. look at the Osprey it started in the 1970's against the Soviets lol the B-70 the list goes on the problem The Miltary Industrial Complex.
If Burton and his ilk had been around in WWI,
they would have fought tooth & nail to not get tanks at all.
"What's wrong with horses ? They're faster, much cheaper and if they brake down,
you can still feed them to the men." #ReformerLogic
What a cast, heck of a set of story telling.
I'm only 30 minutes into this movie and it's cracking me up! Not because it's outlandish but it's what I'd expect from a bunch of pentagon politicians pretending they are military officers. Thanks for putting this movie up!❤
You know that almost all of this movie was a lie, right?
@@matthewjones39 Yes. It's just a fun work of fiction.
I came here to say the cast and studio now need to write a formal apology to the Bradley.
Look brother, the Bradley turned out OK, however the point of the flick was it was supposed to be an infantry battle taxi…. Get troops from here to there, not a light tank with tank killer capability. We already have tank killing capabilities in the ABRAMS. Obtw I was a tank commander in the 3rd ACR, 10 tanks and 13 Bradley’s.
@@dereklucero5785thank you for your service.
@@dereklucero5785 the Bradley was an IFV from the start, and anyways APCs including the m113 were used as IFVs doctrinally cause leaving your troops to fend for themselves on the front line is apparently “messed up”
Ex Army here. Read the book. It's real. The movie isn't. I was in Iraq for desert storm. The Bradley was awesome. It wouldn't have been if not for this dude.
This movie makes me think about the Mark 14 torpedo that had a nasty habit of exploding too soon or too late if it didn't made a 180 degree turn after launch and attacked the sub that had launched it. Yet the bureau of ordinance kept on saying that there was nothing wrong with it and that the 'accidents' were caused by the crew, not following protocol. No kidding.
context on Romania: it was an independent state ruled by a communist regime. it was part of the "Soviet block," but that just means it was a member of the Warsaw Pact. the Romanian ammo wasn't Soviet, and you could tell this by the simple fact that the text wasn't cyrilc
The fact is that in those times we have one of the best defense industry in the eastern block with clients in the whole third world, so is very derogatory to describe our ammunition as „bad”. In fact the american troops has captured Ak-47 s stamped „Cugir Factory” in the Middle East from the insurgents in almost perfect condition used by the irakian army since the iranian-irakian war in the 80s . Saddam Hussein was one of our best customers on a long list of african and middle eastern presidents, dictators and revolutionary leaders like Yasser Arafat. On the other hand we have enough good technicians to be able improve our arsenal before and after the revolution of 1989 even with limited means thanks to our research teams and fruitful colaborations with israeli defense industry, one of the best and competitive in the world and partially with the United States. But today we buy as american vassals only your deprecated and overpriced weapon sistems as our sometime formidable defense industry is a hill of scraps thanks to our corrupt politicians.
@@huamokolatok Wrong, Romania did had the worse ammo ever produced, in fact it still has. The 100mm AntiTank round is the worse ammo ever produced, even the armed forces complains about it. TR85 cannon is not able to do much damage because Romania is not able to produce quality ammo.
Also, AK ammo is not very good in comparrison with other sorrounding countries.
@@TheBoyar the problem with the TR-85 and its ammo is that... this is a fancy T-55 being pushed forward in 2024. The army simply did not have the budget to get something more advanced. It's a problem of age, not quality. Thankfully, 54 Abrams M1A2 are coming to Romania in 2026.
Regarding Cugir ammo in Iraq: communist Romania produced great *export* goods. What was kept for internal use was... whatever was too bad to sell.
@@TheBoyar Today maybe yes, because our defense industry was already sold to scrap and we have no capabilities to produce as in the past. But in the communist era was different. And even with the scarce resources we have we were able to modernize our Migs 21 and Puma helicopters and produce one supersonic fighter, Hawk for training and attack on soil. When you import special powders from Serbia is natural you aren t capable to produce quality ammunition anymore. And our tanks constructed after old soviet era models are already obsolete so is enough that they could function, and so is the armaments of the infantry. We aren t able to develop an original assault rifle, only a pistol imitated after the Jericho produced in some 10.000 pieces distributed to local police and constabulary forces. What we have new and in almost good condition are bought for high prices from our foreign masters from NATO.
Great movie !!
What´s your problem Smith?
Not elegant enough for ya!?
Besides, portholes?
What are we? The Navy?
This movie is a criticism of *the process* of design by committee.
A lot of bradley fans in the comments trying to defend it in particular, you're missing the point.
The bradley, in its modern iteration as an infantry fighting vehicle is ok.
But the 'design by comittie' objectively failed in several key ereas:
1.) since bradley is an IFV and not an APC, the m113 is still in service.
2.) since the Bradley was meant to be able to float, the armor was too thin to stop soviet 14.5mm machinegun fire (and later had to be up-armored).
3.) the bradley was too heavy to float.
4.) it took *18 years* to design the thing.
In Australia there is a saying that goes like this: A platypus is a duck designed by committee, I have also heard t say that a camel is a horse designed by committee.
It was a huge failure from the very beginning. It was meant to carry 12 troops but now carries 6 troops.
@@yesiamarussianbot3076 fun fact: camels are much better performers than horses in long and difficult travel conditions
I am actually surprised that this movie is allowed to stay up.
after movies are 20 years old it is public domain.
@@halburd1 Bullshit. Why the fuck do we have to buy or rent a movie 50 years old if it was in the public domain?
@@ztheletter5296 Why you russians should be even interested in inimical Hollywood movies at all?)) Go look for the correct Z-movies made in ruzzia - "dyadya vania" bs or something)
Sure, it doesn't make sense on paper, but the bradley has proven itself in combat since the Gulf War. If you dont believe it go watch the video of a bradley turing a t72 into a spinning top 😂
Yes, after it was heavily redesigned.
@@thomasroewer5673 and not before a whole lot of people used that project to enrich themselves
That's because the vehicle made sense on paper, it's just that Burton is a two faced liar - he describes initial Bradley design as a light and speedy armored battle taxi and himself as a fresh and naive but idealistic man, meanwhile Bradley according to every non-secret military document was designed as US response to BMP meaning a light tank that carries troops and abandonment of idea of APC for IFV doctrine while Burton was an officer working in procurement for over a decade and receiving multuple kickbacks from arms manufacturers, retiring as a miliionaire - he retired preciselt because his battle taxi design presented as intial Bradley design was rejected and the design in the movie does not make sense on paper because movie is based on a fraudulent representation of events.
Just found this good movie on military waste and self delusion. The corrected version of the Bradley did well but it’s not what was had in mind first design time. I remember ricocheting off this kind of ministry foolishness myself when serving.
It brings up some good points. However, it's also important to realize that this is based on a book written by the totally-not-disinterested Burton, himself. My guess is that it's mostly true, with some allowances for his self interest and a few extra devil horns scrawled on the pictures of his enemies.
Scratch thet true part and reppace it with bullshit. Its not all made up, but basicly evreything is sceward to make Burton look good and the Pentagon bad. The opposite is usually true
I gotta laugh at all the people in the comments absolutely certain that Burton was Satan incarnate. Saying everything he said had zero evidence to back it up, while having zero evidence on the contrary themselves.
Honestly, all it took was a quick look on Wikipedia to see that the vehicle took almost 20 years to develop to know that there was truth with what Burton said. It doesn't matter to me what small details were over- or under-exaggerated here or there; I can still spot bureaucratic issues when I see them - so just like you said, it's clear that this is Mostly True with Embellishments.
Edit: I also say this as a fan of the Bradley. I think its production form (especially with regards to the further revisions) is excellent and it excels at filling a niche - a niche that is not the original one it set out to fill.
I also think that many of the commenters are lashing out specifically becuase they, too, are fans, and take the movie as a hit piece that's anti-Bradley. Specifically without understanding the nuance between the in-development Bradley that's depicted, versus the final result we had for deployment in the Middle East.