@@GHOSTOFONYX10 not kidding, but that’s Russian bias for ya, and that’s why they nerfed the APDS on the bradley to 81mm penetration, because the side armor of Russian tanks is 80mm thick, so you’ll never actually penetrate it
@@TheRealPatrick_Star that wasn't russian bias. that was spook not knowing how to aim. The T-62 was on a slope and spook was aiming downwards. He was blatantly missing and wasting ammo.
Ah yes. An experimental vehicle that barely even made it out of the drawing board, that never even had a chance of being service, going against a vehicle from the 80s thats designed to be an IFV, not a warthunder light tank.
"They thought they could bully us into submission... they thought we would just watch and fall... but today we'll show them the might OF THE SOVIET UNIOOOON!" (Polyushka polye plays in the background)
So basically, the reason why the Bradley filled so many rolls is because the more programs for specific tech closed, the more shit the Army put onto the Bradley so it can cover those rolls.
@J Sailer For the more recent crowd the P.W. movie no doubt had an influence. Back when I was riding my dinosaur against the Soviets, a lot of my brothers in arms and myself were "umm, no thanks. We should stick with the 113." Now, with the passage of time, I have come to appreciate the M2 and M3 Bradleys.
As for why the 2nd TOW missile wouldn't fire, I found that after the update, if you're too close to a target it won't fire. I don't have a specific distance measurement, but on level ground it's about at where your gun can depress to on the ground and closer.
Although I haven't played War Thunder that explanation sounds very likely as the explosion from a missile at that range would also damage the vehicle launching it.
As a scout and firm fan of the Brad i have found the perfect description of this amazing vehicle. The M2A3 Bradley is the Platypus of the United States Armored Community. It is a bunch of pieces that don't look like they belong together, but it will mess you up!
I was a m3a3 driver then gunner, Its a direct lay gun sight. Kinda like direct lay gun sights on a artillery system. The brad has a manual mode where you turn the turret and gun individually incase the power goes out, you would use that to manually aim while manually turing the turret and gun. Its a huge massive pain in the ass
First the US adds a built in heating system to the M3 Lee/Grant, the next they add a toilet and a stove to a prototype IFV? Damn, I guess our military really is better than everyone else’s.
I'm relatively new to this channel, found it from the "Everything wrong with (insert fictional sci-fi tank here)" videos, and despite knowing literally nothing about tanks, I love these videos. Would love to see something about the largest tanks ever built, unless there's already a video on that and I'm just too dumb to find it. Mainly the Landkreuzer and the Maus.
Correction, 40mm, to cohere with the other NATO IFV. US likes to keep everything NATO interchangeable. For instance, Brits are rocking some new 40mm cannons
Nice, my HS senior was a Bradley driver until the engine caught on fire because the mechanics never told him how to properly oil the engine.... that and it was a cursed Bradley that had SEVERAL incidents where people almost died. So after an investigation which ended in, "well.... we are to proud to say we fucked up but, you weren't at fault so you won't get in trouble". He is now a Humvee driver who serves as a major's (best cushy job he's ever had) chauffer. He finishes his contract and is basically going to fail his final PT due to being too fat so he won't be recalled or extended (at least that is his plan).
4:39 this hurts me, the fact that they nurfed the Bradley to the extent where it can pen the side of soviet MBT's. This is the main reason I don't use the Bradley anymore, give its old stats back!
In terms of learning something: I didn't know about the up-armored M-113 designs. I hadn't known about, even though it is how I have been recently employing the Bradley in the game, about the doctrinal idea of rapid counter-attack. So, thanks for those insights.
Hey I was in your game last night on the desert map in the first 2 minutes man you nailed those guys on left flank I was watching you while I was trying to wait to go to A you did a great job
I feel that quite a few of the current nato military vehicles might need replacement soon as new engine designs and other technologies have seen a few interesting updates. Like the 3 cylinder 6 piston diesel engines.
The main problem associate with the Bradley IFV is the organizational structure of a combined arms battalions. This means they have to operate in mass battalion sized maneuvers. Unfortunately, such need rarely arises these days. So dispatching combined arms companies, platoons, or even squads would be more practical than dispatching the whole battalion. The new IFV needs to be a fusion vehicle between MBT's and IFV's classes that can classified as its own armored fighting vehicle "AFV". That means a IFV hull with a 105mm gun that has enough cargo space to dismount 6-10 personnel with 3 crew members integrated to the squad unit. This kind of consolidation of small units and equipment would be critical in urban warfare where small dispatches can easily be isolated and vulnerable along with our logistical supply chain being simplified and more distributed evenly. Such operational flexibility will keep armored warfare relevant and prevent "doctrine decay" for the next 30 to 50 years. Even then, there are many other challenges not mentioned that could prevent any of these changes from happening like another sequester.
@@vitorion007 think the m35 mako is the choice for video as the grizzly never moved in any game. here a quote from The Art of Mass Effect, this vehicle was an early concept for the Mako, but the developers didn't like how it performed in gameplay. They liked the look of it and kept it in the game as a static object.
@@starliner2498 just search up “Blacktaildefense” in the TH-cam search bar. You’ll see the channel at the top. He makes videos on military vehicles, mostly tanks
The thing is that it’s jack of all trades design compromises it’s ability to be a troop carrier. As it only can carry 6 soldiers rather than entire squad. You have to make two Bradley’s for that and not to mention they’re slower than they could have been to enable rapid deployment of troops.
Glad too see I'm not the only one who the game wont let shoot tow missiles when side scraping. I'm pretty sure that's the issue but you can never really be sure with this game. . .
I like how earlier prototypes look supiciosly similiar to bmp 1/2... But glad that its only earlier prototypes, dont want any people to lirally seat on fuel tanks and accamulators.
I remember seeing the M113A1, although looking back, it could easily be an AIFV, but I'm mostly certainly the plate bolted to it said it was the prototype, over at the Benning Restoration yard. It weirded me out because I remember only seeing it halfway under a tarp, seeing these weird flutes and bulges to the hull, looking like a stretched, malformed 113 and Bradley thing. Neat vehicle, at least from the looks. But if it was based on the 113, I hate it, because that vehicle is a pain to work with. Edit: Also, pretty sure we had an Xm723 but can't totally say.
Here's the reality: the Bradley is taller than the Abrams, and every time someone in it guns the engine it sends a plume of black smoke ten feet straight up in the air. We in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment hated it as a scout vehicle, because it was useless as a scout vehicle. The Abrams is legitimately stealthier. It is not even notably faster or more maneuverable than an Abrams; one of my most enjoyable moments in the Army was during a training exercise where my Abrams was OPFOR versus a Bradley in West Texas scrubland and neither vehicle's MILES (laser-tag for tanks) gear was functioning properly. It was a matter of who could close with the other and manually throw - by hand - a smoke "safety kill" grenade to settle the matter. Our tank won. In practice, the Bradley is effectively a light tank with a high profile and the ability to deploy scouts on foot - who, because of the Bradley's high profile and ten-foot-tall smoke plume on top of that, generally have to deploy on foot a lot further away from the enemy than when they were using M113s. The TOW missile launcher is the thing's only saving grace, giving US cavalry units a collective anti-armor punch far in excess of what just about any cavalry force in the world otherwise does.
5:00 had some keyboard-smashing moments due to the new bug that prevents my Bradley from firing the tow for no apparent reason. Someone wanna tell me how improving the lighting breaks a guided missile? Good job, Snail.
The Army gets new Bradley's every year with extra armor slapped on the sides. It is basically the defense industry's version of having a Season Pass for cosmetics.
It's unlikely they will replace so much as update them. The Russians have been using the same basic tank chassis since the T-72. And most of the places we are fighting are less all out wars than squabbles over diminishing oil reserves. For that environment the M1 and M2 are overkill. If there is a replacement to be had it will likely be a unmanned platform.
Bradley always strikes me as suffering the same badmouthing that the Sherman has. It ain't perfect but it's not the trash it has the rep of being. I was taken in by the Pentagon Wars too tho for a while I'll admit :B
I dunno, I think Sherman is less deserving of hate than Bradley is. No, I don't think Bradley is as awful as people say it is, but it doesn't have the same cold, hard facts to back up its effectiveness. M4 Sherman was thrown into a global war across the world and performed extremely well against an equally modern opponent, while Bradley has had nothing but obsolete piles of garbage to spar with in open ground (Iraqi T-72s and the like).
@@bluntcabbage6042 The Sherman is indeed less deserving. Apologies, I didn't clarify. I simply meant it's the same principle, even if the Sherman deserves it less.
I wonder, Spook: what're your thoughts on the LAV-25 the Marines use instead of the M2 Bradley. Could the LAV-25 (or a modified version specific to the army) be a better suit for the Army instead of the Bradley?
As a brad driver then a gunner, I can affectionately say I hope it never fights a modern conflict. It's too damn tall. And too fucking big, I was a 13fox. So we drove the m3a3, instead of a tow we got a big expensive laser essentially. Disguised as a tow. Because forward observers are the high value targets thats why we look like infantry brads. I wish we stuck with the Knights. Those were amazing. For doing the job of forward observing they are basically useless. It was fun to blast 25 though Also fuck being the turret. Its got less room than crack heads in a church on Sunday
talking about the XM913? likely that going to the stryker. if the Bradley is going to be update. remove the whole caring troops idea. use that new space for little more armor and better engine and rearmed it with a bushmaster II or III.
Do you think the Griffin 3 will be adopted as replacement for the Bradley? On paper it seems to have everything required for it's approval, and after the adoption of the Super AV it seems the Pentagon is more keen on adopting new vehicles without tip toeing for ages around a problem.
The Bradleys missile aiming is messed up and wrong. I can't believe the missile follows the cannons sight now. The missile launcher has more depression than the cannon. You can use the realistic gun sight option in the settings and you're meant to be able to shoot over hills and obstacles as the sight is on the roof and inline with the missiles. Unfortunately this option sucks for tanks last time I tried.
My country is now "acquiring" 76 Bradley M2A2s with an upgrade pack. Personally, not a fan, but it is a significant improvement to what we currently have and I am very satisfied about the attached acquisition of a bunch of TOW-2 missiles, if not the vehicle itself. It's going to be a logistical nightmare, considering that we are acquiring the isreali unmanned turret with 30mm autocannon and Spike LR missiles at the same time to upgrade our Patria AMVs, which is going to be a pain for the logistics boys to deal with, but beggars can't be choosers. Thankfully or hopefully, I'll never have to ride in one in combat and I do not envy the fuckers who will have to unfuck these 33+ ton bastards out of a mudhole once it gets stuck there end especially not the cleaning afterwards. I bet many of them won't even think to remove the IR reflecting panels so they'll get caked with mud and shit on the rear side, like I've seen on the Patria already.
The game may not have let you fire the TOW missile because you were to close. 1. the missile did not have enough time to arm and would've just bounced off and/or 2. you would have been hit with splash damage from your own missile.
So my dad was in the U.S. army and he said the bushmaster 25mm was a great weapon but the Bradley its self was bad and i feel like they should ditch the hull and make a shorter on becuse it is just too high of a silhouette. Its pretty much just too tall
Couldn't really have made it shorter. There's a lot crammed in there and I don't think the infantry's backs would have appreciated dropping the roof a few centimeters.
"Sloped for additional protection" has the same vibe as "ribbed for her pleasure"
There's a line between Booty Call and But Dial
Whhaat
Ironically enough ribbed armour for tanks does exist
@@arjunmadan318 It means that it is pretty much useless :)
@@ofekk213 and ied:s
And while it doesnt handle heat ammo it has spall liners and some times cages to reduce the heats damage and effectiveness.
No turret -> smol turret -> smol turret -> small turret -> Medium Turret -> *THICC TURRET*
Until you try working on the gun inside
small -> my p
2:58 imagine you’re in a battle and someone just making scrambled eggs
You have to eat well even in tough time.
egg
Dat boy cookin, dont be hatin on him
When in doubt, TOW missile.
or more 50 cals
@@deggerfiredegg2178 you can never have enuff M2s
not with that last clip though, ATGM the Maus then thump the the others.
If one is not enough, two. If two are not enough, THREE.
@@sergeantmarcusstackerM1903 ah an ork
lmao me getting bullied by spookston in my t-62 at 4:40
lol, gaijin blessed his second tow
Stop, *STOP*, he's already dead!
It was driving me insane watching him dump rounds into your track for seemingly forever
@@GHOSTOFONYX10 not kidding, but that’s Russian bias for ya, and that’s why they nerfed the APDS on the bradley to 81mm penetration, because the side armor of Russian tanks is 80mm thick, so you’ll never actually penetrate it
@@TheRealPatrick_Star that wasn't russian bias. that was spook not knowing how to aim. The T-62 was on a slope and spook was aiming downwards. He was blatantly missing and wasting ammo.
5:44 ah yes, the Maus going up against a vehicle from the 80s. Thank you Gaijin very cool
Ah yes. An experimental vehicle that barely even made it out of the drawing board, that never even had a chance of being service,
going against a vehicle from the 80s thats designed to be an IFV, not a warthunder light tank.
@@honkhonk8009 maus was fully built and fired from its cannons
Ahh World in Conflict flashbacks.
The true CHADS played world in conflict
"They thought they could bully us into submission... they thought we would just watch and fall... but today we'll show them the might OF THE SOVIET UNIOOOON!" (Polyushka polye plays in the background)
I've wanted to play this game for so long but they took it off steam, does anyone know how to get it nowadays?
@@baronentertainment362 GOG
@@baronentertainment362 Its on GOG for 10USD. Its totally worth it.
So basically, the reason why the Bradley filled so many rolls is because the more programs for specific tech closed, the more shit the Army put onto the Bradley so it can cover those rolls.
Yeah basically.
Like the F-35
*Closes a program*
Army to the Bradley: “I’m sorry little one”
"so we don't have a SHORAD vehicle"
"bolt a quad of Stingers onto the M2, it'll be fine."
“They would be outnumbered by about 3-1”
Then it is an even fight
If defending, yeah
And I get the reference
Nah, the Germans had 4 to 1 in WWII.
@@darkoneforce2 the Germans had what where? It’s a halo reference
@@looinrims WWII. eastern front Soviet Union.
@@darkoneforce2 when were they outnumbered 4-1 at any point that mattered?
I remember 3-1 during 1944 offensives, 6.2m to approx 2m
It survived the reformers. Thats impressive enough.
To be honest, I think Pentagon Wars is the biggest reason for people thinking the Bradley sucks.
@J Sailer For the more recent crowd the P.W. movie no doubt had an influence.
Back when I was riding my dinosaur against the Soviets, a lot of my brothers in arms and myself were "umm, no thanks. We should stick with the 113."
Now, with the passage of time, I have come to appreciate the M2 and M3 Bradleys.
@@pauld6967 the bradly is GOOD, its just not a troop carrier.
should have been designed alongside a version with only a remote-20mil.
@@thebravegallade731 Are you on crack or something
@@AmericanIdiot7659 No no, he's got a point.
@@AmericanIdiot7659 He has a point. An up-armored and up-gunned M113 would be a great APC companion to the M2/M3.
As for why the 2nd TOW missile wouldn't fire, I found that after the update, if you're too close to a target it won't fire. I don't have a specific distance measurement, but on level ground it's about at where your gun can depress to on the ground and closer.
Although I haven't played War Thunder that explanation sounds very likely as the explosion from a missile at that range would also damage the vehicle launching it.
As a scout and firm fan of the Brad i have found the perfect description of this amazing vehicle.
The M2A3 Bradley is the Platypus of the United States Armored Community. It is a bunch of pieces that don't look like they belong together, but it will mess you up!
Hey spookston what’s that piece of glass above the bushmaster gun
That is a backup gunsight believe it or not. The commander can manually control the gun and use that sight to fire.
@@bwshadowfang6160 the commander can also use the gunners IBAS(Primary sight) assuming the computers are working
I was a m3a3 driver then gunner, Its a direct lay gun sight. Kinda like direct lay gun sights on a artillery system. The brad has a manual mode where you turn the turret and gun individually incase the power goes out, you would use that to manually aim while manually turing the turret and gun. Its a huge massive pain in the ass
First the US adds a built in heating system to the M3 Lee/Grant, the next they add a toilet and a stove to a prototype IFV? Damn, I guess our military really is better than everyone else’s.
British put kettles and stoves into their tanks
The IDF puts a really good AC in the merkava,come on you can’t beat that.
What if we put the toilet, stove, and AC in one tank/IFV?
US had a ship basically just to make ice cream for troops in the late stages of the Pacific theater during WW2.
TOWs look soo good after the update
What was the update exactly?
@@TheAmazingCowpig the whole 2.0 update with the updated graphics
I’ve fired TOW2’s off of the M151 and 1045 humvees in the Corps years ago so much fun
I'm relatively new to this channel, found it from the "Everything wrong with (insert fictional sci-fi tank here)" videos, and despite knowing literally nothing about tanks, I love these videos.
Would love to see something about the largest tanks ever built, unless there's already a video on that and I'm just too dumb to find it. Mainly the Landkreuzer and the Maus.
Pentagon wars *exists*
Spookston: I'm gonna end this man's whole career
3:09
You channelled a little bit of Arcade Gannon there, didn't ya...
the bradley is getting an upgrade, they are improving it with a new 50mm
Correction, 40mm, to cohere with the other NATO IFV. US likes to keep everything NATO interchangeable.
For instance, Brits are rocking some new 40mm cannons
IFV*
Actually the Bradley wont get a 40mm cannon (or maybe he will), but primarily his successor will get one. (or 50mm, Im not sure about that)
@@snazapples4079 im pretty sure its a 50mm
@@snazapples4079 Pentagon and General Dynamics both say it’s gonna be a 50mm.
As a Bradley operator, I appreciate this video
Thanks for your service good sir
Nice, my HS senior was a Bradley driver until the engine caught on fire because the mechanics never told him how to properly oil the engine.... that and it was a cursed Bradley that had SEVERAL incidents where people almost died.
So after an investigation which ended in, "well.... we are to proud to say we fucked up but, you weren't at fault so you won't get in trouble". He is now a Humvee driver who serves as a major's (best cushy job he's ever had) chauffer. He finishes his contract and is basically going to fail his final PT due to being too fat so he won't be recalled or extended (at least that is his plan).
@@crocidile90 well that’s fucking pathetic
4:39 this hurts me, the fact that they nurfed the Bradley to the extent where it can pen the side of soviet MBT's. This is the main reason I don't use the Bradley anymore, give its old stats back!
To be fair, Spookston was firing down on the side armor, thus giving it an angle of at least 15°
In terms of learning something:
I didn't know about the up-armored M-113 designs.
I hadn't known about, even though it is how I have been recently employing the Bradley in the game, about the doctrinal idea of rapid counter-attack.
So, thanks for those insights.
Hey I was in your game last night on the desert map in the first 2 minutes man you nailed those guys on left flank I was watching you while I was trying to wait to go to A you did a great job
4:52 atgm wouldn't fire coz u too close to target. Obviously
Why does the T90As anti missile laser sensor work on the Bradley if it’s guided by cable?
I feel that quite a few of the current nato military vehicles might need replacement soon as new engine designs and other technologies have seen a few interesting updates. Like the 3 cylinder 6 piston diesel engines.
The main problem associate with the Bradley IFV is the organizational structure of a combined arms battalions. This means they have to operate in mass battalion sized maneuvers. Unfortunately, such need rarely arises these days. So dispatching combined arms companies, platoons, or even squads would be more practical than dispatching the whole battalion. The new IFV needs to be a fusion vehicle between MBT's and IFV's classes that can classified as its own armored fighting vehicle "AFV". That means a IFV hull with a 105mm gun that has enough cargo space to dismount 6-10 personnel with 3 crew members integrated to the squad unit. This kind of consolidation of small units and equipment would be critical in urban warfare where small dispatches can easily be isolated and vulnerable along with our logistical supply chain being simplified and more distributed evenly. Such operational flexibility will keep armored warfare relevant and prevent "doctrine decay" for the next 30 to 50 years. Even then, there are many other challenges not mentioned that could prevent any of these changes from happening like another sequester.
I love IT when he says about vietnam war.
The way he does it.
Hey Spookston, can you do a video review of the ground vehicles from the Mass Effect series? Please
I'd really like to see him talk about the M29 Grizzly, it's an interesting IFV.
@@vitorion007 think the m35 mako is the choice for video as the grizzly never moved in any game. here a quote from The Art of Mass Effect, this vehicle was an early concept for the Mako, but the developers didn't like how it performed in gameplay. They liked the look of it and kept it in the game as a static object.
The modified M113a1 known as the "YPR" here in the Netherlands, is shockingly, still in service.
Is that a bad thing or not?
Your tow missiles didn't have enough depression so it prevents it from being fired I get the same thing on the bmp 2M
Awe...I miss my M2A2 Bradley ODS (Operation Desert Storm) named A-22 "Dirty Duece"! Gunner... Coax troops, sabot PC!
MOAR MOAR HISTORY! I really enjoy these history videos they are very informative nice work
You should def do more of these types of videos! Quick dives into vehicle development!
spook, have you by chance heard of blacktaildefense? I feel like your videos practically destroy all of his.
Oof, it's been a long time since I've heard that name. I totally agree with you.
@@Silavite yeah I stumbled upon him a few months ago. An interesting individual indeed
@@atomicspartan131 Gib explanation? I'm curious
Who's this individual?
@@starliner2498 just search up “Blacktaildefense” in the TH-cam search bar. You’ll see the channel at the top. He makes videos on military vehicles, mostly tanks
The thing is that it’s jack of all trades design compromises it’s ability to be a troop carrier. As it only can carry 6 soldiers rather than entire squad. You have to make two Bradley’s for that and not to mention they’re slower than they could have been to enable rapid deployment of troops.
But it does give increased firepower and presence, you can always mix a Bradley with a troop carrier
Strv 9040 Bill
*secretly smiles in the background*
If Swedish vehicles were historically accurate
THEN THEY WOULD ALL WORK FLAWLESSLY AND EVEN BETTER THAN IN GAME, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH SWEDISH VEHICLES THEY ARE GREAT. BUY OUR PRODUCTS. :)
@@thelonewolf9603 Calm down, Carolus
I like how begleit has NO FUCKING HULLBREAK, but somehow hitting Stryker with HEATFS into fence cage hullbreaks it. . .
Ah, the Predator Tank without those sponsons.
One of my fav.
hey spook, could you do a video like this one for the mbt 70 and the kpz 70?
What a great summary
Russia : BMP 1,BMP 2 , BMP 2M, BMP3
USA: nope
gayjin...
dont forget about the Object they get. and how they have 1200MM Tandem ATGMs
Glad too see I'm not the only one who the game wont let shoot tow missiles when side scraping. I'm pretty sure that's the issue but you can never really be sure with this game. . .
I like how earlier prototypes look supiciosly similiar to bmp 1/2... But glad that its only earlier prototypes, dont want any people to lirally seat on fuel tanks and accamulators.
Its the cute thing that is the Nod light tank from Tiberian Dawn, and I like it for that reason.
This type of video is really good and I enjoyed it
I remember seeing the M113A1, although looking back, it could easily be an AIFV, but I'm mostly certainly the plate bolted to it said it was the prototype, over at the Benning Restoration yard. It weirded me out because I remember only seeing it halfway under a tarp, seeing these weird flutes and bulges to the hull, looking like a stretched, malformed 113 and Bradley thing. Neat vehicle, at least from the looks. But if it was based on the 113, I hate it, because that vehicle is a pain to work with.
Edit: Also, pretty sure we had an Xm723 but can't totally say.
The M1A3 was talked about in the early 2000s, but nothing has come of it yet.
Here's the reality: the Bradley is taller than the Abrams, and every time someone in it guns the engine it sends a plume of black smoke ten feet straight up in the air. We in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment hated it as a scout vehicle, because it was useless as a scout vehicle. The Abrams is legitimately stealthier.
It is not even notably faster or more maneuverable than an Abrams; one of my most enjoyable moments in the Army was during a training exercise where my Abrams was OPFOR versus a Bradley in West Texas scrubland and neither vehicle's MILES (laser-tag for tanks) gear was functioning properly. It was a matter of who could close with the other and manually throw - by hand - a smoke "safety kill" grenade to settle the matter. Our tank won.
In practice, the Bradley is effectively a light tank with a high profile and the ability to deploy scouts on foot - who, because of the Bradley's high profile and ten-foot-tall smoke plume on top of that, generally have to deploy on foot a lot further away from the enemy than when they were using M113s. The TOW missile launcher is the thing's only saving grace, giving US cavalry units a collective anti-armor punch far in excess of what just about any cavalry force in the world otherwise does.
You should do a video on how the Yom Kippur War changed tank/apc/ifv design across the board. That would be interesting to see.
Its funny cuz the Bradly was meant to replace the M-113 but that 60 year old vehicle still remains in service.
5:00 had some keyboard-smashing moments due to the new bug that prevents my Bradley from firing the tow for no apparent reason.
Someone wanna tell me how improving the lighting breaks a guided missile? Good job, Snail.
TOW missiles have a minimum engagement distance, glad to see they got that right and trolled you at 5:00 lol
This thing is a monster in Squad
Cause it fulfills its intended roll perfectly there. Infantry support
As a person who mostly plays on russians that cannon fucking gives me nightmares for days
Could you do one like this on the m1a1 abrams?
Buying brand new German Puma IFVs and Leopard 2A7s would be cheaper than the cost of upgrading the old platforms. They definitely need replacing.
But they leopard 2 itself would need replacing as it is little (if any) better than the Abrams
The Abrams doesn't need replacing. It could benefit from a modernization though.
Everybody gets scared by the T14, "Russia gets superior" etc. - without looking how many T-14 there are actually in service
The Army gets new Bradley's every year with extra armor slapped on the sides. It is basically the defense industry's version of having a Season Pass for cosmetics.
I like the bradley
Your end credits sounds like a snip from AC5 ( Ace combat 5) with the ark bird docking in one of the cinematic scenes.
I really like your videos
It's unlikely they will replace so much as update them. The Russians have been using the same basic tank chassis since the T-72. And most of the places we are fighting are less all out wars than squabbles over diminishing oil reserves. For that environment the M1 and M2 are overkill. If there is a replacement to be had it will likely be a unmanned platform.
The us army is already working on a program to replace the Bradley. Can't wait to see gijan add it.
you should take a look at the begleightpanzer 57
Never heard of m2 Bradley only m3
M2 carries less ammunition and TOWs so it can carry more passangers
that picture of the XM723, isn't that the South Korean camouflage pattern? Was the vehicle tested by their military or what is the reason behind this?
Those whole thing sounds like Hodgepodge
Can you do a similar vid about the FV510 Warrior IFV.
Bradley always strikes me as suffering the same badmouthing that the Sherman has.
It ain't perfect but it's not the trash it has the rep of being.
I was taken in by the Pentagon Wars too tho for a while I'll admit :B
I dunno, I think Sherman is less deserving of hate than Bradley is. No, I don't think Bradley is as awful as people say it is, but it doesn't have the same cold, hard facts to back up its effectiveness. M4 Sherman was thrown into a global war across the world and performed extremely well against an equally modern opponent, while Bradley has had nothing but obsolete piles of garbage to spar with in open ground (Iraqi T-72s and the like).
@@bluntcabbage6042 The Sherman is indeed less deserving. Apologies, I didn't clarify. I simply meant it's the same principle, even if the Sherman deserves it less.
Ah, yes
A new Video, Nice
I wonder, Spook: what're your thoughts on the LAV-25 the Marines use instead of the M2 Bradley. Could the LAV-25 (or a modified version specific to the army) be a better suit for the Army instead of the Bradley?
It sure would be nice, if we got the modern version of the M2 and not the 1980s version.
Any chance you'll be doing the history of other vehicles in the future?
As a brad driver then a gunner, I can affectionately say I hope it never fights a modern conflict. It's too damn tall. And too fucking big, I was a 13fox. So we drove the m3a3, instead of a tow we got a big expensive laser essentially. Disguised as a tow. Because forward observers are the high value targets thats why we look like infantry brads. I wish we stuck with the Knights. Those were amazing. For doing the job of forward observing they are basically useless. It was fun to blast 25 though
Also fuck being the turret. Its got less room than crack heads in a church on Sunday
5:00 I don't know why that happens every time you are that close to an enemy.
Game might be modeling a dead zone for the missile or something.
Arming distance of the missile
I believe the Bradley is getting a new more powerful 50 mm canon
talking about the XM913? likely that going to the stryker. if the Bradley is going to be update. remove the whole caring troops idea. use that new space for little more armor and better engine and rearmed it with a bushmaster II or III.
@@phoenixraider42 Your both wrong the XM913 50mm is going on the OMFV which will be the bradleys replacement. Strykers will be getting the XM813 30mm.
Maybe the history of the bmp series of ifv? For next video
Can you do the history of challenger mbt thank you
Do you think the Griffin 3 will be adopted as replacement for the Bradley? On paper it seems to have everything required for it's approval, and after the adoption of the Super AV it seems the Pentagon is more keen on adopting new vehicles without tip toeing for ages around a problem.
For some reason the Bradley has a minimal firing distance of 12m to fire its TOW.
*uploaded 1 minute ago
Comments from nearly an hour
TH-cam is drunk again
can you make a video on the stryker?
The Bradleys missile aiming is messed up and wrong. I can't believe the missile follows the cannons sight now. The missile launcher has more depression than the cannon. You can use the realistic gun sight option in the settings and you're meant to be able to shoot over hills and obstacles as the sight is on the roof and inline with the missiles. Unfortunately this option sucks for tanks last time I tried.
I'm pretty sure the new variants can fire the top town TOW2.
You'll never see that in game though because WT is escapism.
Correct, Brads can use TOW2
There is a program going in to replace the bradley
I really wanna see a 50mm auto cannon for this thing
How about the ZSU 57-2 guns?
totally not overkill.
@@davidty2006
I want 4 coaxial .50 BMG miniguns
IF THAT RAMP DONT FALL IN PLACE
Tank history for the AAV
You should do Everything Wrong With Obsolete's Vehicle Design
My country is now "acquiring" 76 Bradley M2A2s with an upgrade pack. Personally, not a fan, but it is a significant improvement to what we currently have and I am very satisfied about the attached acquisition of a bunch of TOW-2 missiles, if not the vehicle itself.
It's going to be a logistical nightmare, considering that we are acquiring the isreali unmanned turret with 30mm autocannon and Spike LR missiles at the same time to upgrade our Patria AMVs, which is going to be a pain for the logistics boys to deal with, but beggars can't be choosers.
Thankfully or hopefully, I'll never have to ride in one in combat and I do not envy the fuckers who will have to unfuck these 33+ ton bastards out of a mudhole once it gets stuck there end especially not the cleaning afterwards. I bet many of them won't even think to remove the IR reflecting panels so they'll get caked with mud and shit on the rear side, like I've seen on the Patria already.
Can you make the same video but for the warrior
I never fart more than twice a day
I thought M1 was supposed to be phased up until 2050?
replace the abrams?! how dare you
What would the Abrams be replaced with?
I would play War Thunder/World of Tanks if it had infantry aswell.
The game may not have let you fire the TOW missile because you were to close. 1. the missile did not have enough time to arm and would've just bounced off and/or 2. you would have been hit with splash damage from your own missile.
So my dad was in the U.S. army and he said the bushmaster 25mm was a great weapon but the Bradley its self was bad and i feel like they should ditch the hull and make a shorter on becuse it is just too high of a silhouette. Its pretty much just too tall
Couldn't really have made it shorter. There's a lot crammed in there and I don't think the infantry's backs would have appreciated dropping the roof a few centimeters.