It's not a troop Carrier it was never designed to be a troop Carrier that's what this movie gets wrong that's what James Burton got wrong in his s***** f****** book
@@WardNightstone the movie heavily over dramatized not to mention the Air Force officer assigned to oversee the Bradley was heavily against anything new even radar equipped planes and guided munitions. Basically he wanted to have planes doing straffing runs on anti aircraft guns.
@@mq5731 They didnt. Each general had a different objective. One wanted a scout. One wanted an anti-tank vehicle. Evidently the original general that wanted a troop carrier must not have been present because he didnt object to cutting the number of troops it carried. Otherwise it would have ended up even bigger.
A more common scenario: Sr Engineer makes design error. Jr Engineer catches it in time to prevent a problem. Sr Engineer gets angry at uppity youngster, does not fix error. Manager sides with older Sr Engineer because he's older and they've worked together a long time. Project fails. Jr Engineer is not invited to "Lessons Learned" meeting. Everyone just remembers that the Jr Engineer didn't get along with the team.
"a troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C." Kills me everytime.
Interesting fact, the Bradley and older M60 A3 had superior night vision sights then the Gulf War-era Abrams. At the Abrams used a sights with a lower resolution, than the previous generation. As far as a night reconnaissance vehicle it worked perfectly fine. The real issue is that it was mediocre as a troop transport. Since it never was able capable of carrying a full squad. Requiring the squad to be split between 2 Bradleys.
The issue is that quotes full of s*** it's not a troop Carrier it's an infantry fighting vehicle it can carry some troops but it's not designed to do that solely it is not too conspicuous to do reconnaissance it actually performed rather well in that role during the first Gulf war so that part of the quote is right out and a turreted ifv was by no means A New concept at the time the Soviets had done it the Germans had done it the British were going to do it and the Bradley's armor was designed to withstand 14.7 mm HMG fire if you bolted too much armor on it it wouldn't be able to perform its designated roles
Every decent software developer has experienced this at least once and many experience it perpetually. I'd say it's actually worse in software because you get a lot more "I don't know how to explain what I want, but just keep making changes, I'll know it when I see it" and "what do you mean it costs X? it's just lines of code, not tangible goods".
Oh, you lucky software folks have no idea what mechanical product designers have to go through. The above is actually routine in even automotive design process...
It's the nature of modern management reflected through board rooms and committee decision. Everyone gets to put in their 0.02c because of politics, so the major decisions are anchored on keeping everyone happy rather than choosing a single focus. This method has its pros and cons, it just so happened that in the Bradley's case it was all of the cons.
You can see his soul wither and die and his face drop when he realizes that generals are going to ask him to make the tank amphibious next. That's one great acting.
F35 is a jet fighter which is not too agile toe to toe with enemy fighter, a fighter which suppose to do a recon but has less range than the Cessna but can carry a nuke that can take down half of entire DC.
@GM Steelhaven beat me to it. As an another object lesson, and proof that we never learn, the F111 was the original "All services" plane that didn't work because of different requirements for each service.
@@orlock20 Except there are BMPs(IFV), BMDs(marine and paratrooper IFV), BTRs(APC), BRM-K(scout IFV), BTR-D(APC on BMD chassis) and so on. So soviets decided that if we need 10 vehicles, we WOULD make 10 vehicles. We'll just make a good platform for it and try to use universal components. Something that Bradley could have been too. Thankfully there are other NATO members as well as IDF from whom actually good vehicles can be purchased. And I wouldn't be surprised if US will eventually just adopt IDF equipement that uses soviet like approach in many regards(unsurprisingly:))
The real lesson: Appropriations and Acquisitions (in the DoD) is ran by people with agendas ("This will get me promoted!") leading to projects such as the M2 that had guaranteed funding being the target of a buttload of what's known as feature creep. Again, all because someone(s) want to be promoted.
@ PickledOnion *_"The Iowa Class battleship, started off as a troop carrier."_* Nope, that simply ain't true! 'Cause they were originally planned as a mere LCTs, but then came 20 mm Oerlikons, 40 mm pom-poms, 4.7-inch QF-guns, 5 inch rockets... *;-)*
When I was assigned at the DoD Inspector General's office, this film was used as part of the introductory training for new special investigators. Before anyone tries to claim this is Hollywood fiction, try reading the book "Pentagon Wars" by Col. James Burton (the character played by Cary Elwes in the film) -- it's a disturbingly accurate recounting of the way that programs are run by the Defense industry, full of corruption, lies, deceit, and runaway greed that puts the lives of our Service men and women at serious risk, simply to enhance profits for corporate America.
Not only in U.S, I think all countries are like that because all countries has two things in common man and money. Regulation helps but it can only do much.
Lancer, I was assigned to a Cavalry unit and we used the Bradley as a scouting vehicle. When I saw this monstrosity, I laughed. I don't know how the vehicle performed in actual combat, but I know it wasn't stealthy or quiet enough to be effective.
The performance of the M2 Bradley was impressive during the Persian Gulf War due to its extensive anti-tank weaponry. It destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the M1 Abrams main battle tanks did, and only 3 Bradleys were destroyed by enemy fire. So long as it was able to get in the first hit on they enemy, its weaker armor didn't matter that much. However, they were somehow prone to friendly fire, with 17 Bradleys destroyed by Coalition friendly fire during the war. During the 2003 Iraq War, through, they proved very vulnerable to bombings and RPG attacks from insurgent terrorists, due to their weak armor and not being able to land the first hit on enemy ambushes. About 150 Bradleys were destroyed and 700-1000 damaged, and were later phased out and replaced by the much-better armored (though significantly less-armed) MRAPs. In counterinsurgency operations, being able to tank hits from enemies you can't even see coming is much more important than pure firepower.
_only 3 Bradleys were destroyed by enemy fire_ or so told by the Pentagon, but little do you know that not only did they loose hundreds of the fucking things during the first war, they also lost multiple Abram tanks. If there is one thing is to never believe the American government when they say anything, its always underrepresented.
And you can thank the performance of the M2 Bradley in large part due to the efforts of Col. James Burton to save and fix this mess. It took a billion dollars of upgrades to take what we see in the movie to the one that saw combat. One of the points the movie, and book by the same title, made was to show how certain people inside Pentagon at the time were willing to cut any corner to push out faulty systems. In the case of armor they had the idea that divisions through numbers and attrition, even if the tanks were poor, would win the day. After all it worked against Germany in WW2 and the numbers won the cold war so how could it be wrong? Well Col. Burton was one of a group of people who knew that Maneuver, not Attrition, wins battle more, and that if you end up in an attrition battle, you've done something stupid.
@@lordhawkeye Well, I certainly don't dispute Colonel Burton's efforts, he certainly seems like he spent a stupendous effort and had a hard time getting the thing operational while placating the impossible demands of his superiors. At the very least, attrition battles should be avoided whenever possible, a last resort in case everything goes belly-up
@@SMGJohn you cant come to an argument with no data and claim that the opponents "your data is lies" " so told by the Pentagon," unless you want to be seen with a person of average intellegence
Ayy... my company is dealing with a government department. They are now asking us to deliver extra features beyond the scope of the contract & agreed guidelines, for no extra time extension or funds. They claim it will speed up the project, but the back and forth is eating into the time left before the deadline...
In my position its the sales team that are guilty of this. Then we have to kill oportunities right away or pull back on thousands of dollars worth of bull shit promises we cant keep.
This is one of my favorite movies of its type. The worst part is that I have worked for the U.S. Government for over 28 years. Every part of this series of "design changes" is ABSOLUTELY true to form. NOBODY can keep their fingers from the "design pie." Everyone wants to leave his or her "scent" on it, like a dog walking past posts and fire hydrants. It went from carrying 11 troops and a driver down to 5 troops and a driver. One of the guys I worked with actually was a U.S. Army officer who would ride with the troops. He says it worked as a transport but was slow and heavy. He says that the movie was so accurate in discussing the short-comings that it was almost eerie.
A thing that it makes me sad is how hard people try to “deboonk” this film like there’s no tomorrow, defending the complex like their life depends on it Sure, the Bradley has had some successes, but look at Ukraine, at its first combat engagement it got blown up
Oh hey I worked on this in 2006, on the amphibious version! Too bad the wheels were too spaced to do solid landing, and the landing shield kept breaking under the weight of the armor. Fun stuff.
The Port Hole on the side was actually a soviet design. Not kidding, BTR if I remember right, it was designed to be air tight in case of nuclear attack and had port holes specifically designed to fit the muzzle of an AK-47 (which i always found extremely contradictory).
@warhawk9566: That's not the worst of it! They didn't want to go with a Porthole for weapons, *BUT* a weapon mounted into a Ball-Mount that the trooper could use, while looking out throw a 3-view finder! They came up with a whole new version of a Belt-Fed A.R.! Had they gone with a Belt-Fed version of,...oh,... say an M-3 Greasegun in .45ACP, or a British Sten in 9mm, or a M.A.C.-10, or even better: an Owens (something that hardly if ever jams), then it's be great! Too bad the vehicle wont survive getting hit with a HEAT Round! *_:(_*
@@Dreaded88 And in practice the weapon ports on either the Brad or BMP proved to be pretty useless. The only real difference is that the US spent a lot more money (as it usually does) on overly complicated ball sockets and a whole weapon for it (M-231, not belt fed but a full auto only M-16).
@@jamestheotherone742 Not entirely useless. Someone inside can pass a Mars bar to the troop outside without having to open the hatch. Make the vehicle a great Mars bar carrier. It's air conditioned so the bars wont melt. It's armored so the enemy can't shoot nor steal the bar.
It's also frequent outside of the military and even outside of government. The difference is though that private companies much more cash-oriented and have effective ways to mitigate this problem. Governments do not.
@@jonesjohnson6301 Bullshit. Only someone completely ignorant about big corporations can say this. Also, government doesn't pay a minister or general 50 mln $ for warming chair while underlings do all the work, so STFU and educate yourself.
@@KuK137 KuK137 lol Do you even have experience in commissioinng, operations or design? You sound ignorant AF spewing socio-political tripe. His statements are correct, private and government sectors control processes are different. Public-private entities with special interest can lean on legislation to create new revenue streams and utilities can push off their borrowing habits onto the taxpayer. Private entities either borrow and/or leverage their assets, rely on underlying profit from revenue or split company shares to fundraise to broaden investor base. So project management in the private sector have their scopes of work for projects skewed towards effectiveness. And the government does pay 50 million for stooge managers, go read about the corruption of the construction company Judlau. And guess what no one gets fired on the gov end, so if anyone is ignorant its you.
It’s a good one, HBO did it. A little exaggerated but pretty spot on at the same time with all that is wrong with the acquisition process with good laughs and acting.
Yes. I was operations director for a company and would regularly work passed midnight because the owner kept demanding impossible things then I had to be the bad cop that fired one of the telemarketers for doping his wife with wine. It was worse than herding cats, we let staff smoke in the garage yet they would still do it in the bathroom incessantly.
The Navy's LCS program has turned out much the same. A surface combatant with less anti-ship weapons than an Iranian motorboat A sub chaser without ASW weapons or the endurance to chase subs A mine sweeper that can't meet any explosive shock standards And, oh yes, behind schedule and over budget.
Spot on! LCS= little crappy ship! If it were up to me we would sell them to Latin American navies at bargain basement prices or Gove them to the coast guard. If a Latin navy bought some I would recommend gun upgrade to 76mm and make sure you get some Harpoon and RAM missiles installed. Btw.... uss Gabi giffords... wtf? She didn't do jack shit for our nation.
The _Cleveland_ class cruiser was pretty heavily armored for any light cruiser of the era. The German light cruisers only had 50mm. on their belts, the _Cleveland_ had at its thickest 127mm. Italy and France varied. And Japan and Britain were generally better armored than the previous three.
In a lot of ways, I think this film could apply to the software world a little too closely lol 4:15~4:45 is one of my favourite scenes. As is the description at the end of the clip.
Can't your engineering wizards just conjure up a couple lines of extra code? (This phrase would always trigger fantasies of me going totally RAMBO on the good-idea-fairies)
Er, no? The F-22 wasn't developed like this at all. It was supposed to be a 5th-generation, stealth air superiority fighter, and that's exactly what it is. It wasn't designed to do more things than the original concept called for. It's not carrier-capable, it's not meant to carry bombs, it's not meant to have VTOL/STOL capability, it's not meant to be cheap...and it isn't. The F-35 was really horribly mismanaged, particularly with the program trying to build three different aircraft at once, but using the same airframe and as much parts commonality as possible, while also producing and delivering fighters before the program was even complete. It was a mess in management.
@@ReformedSooner24 it does pretty good, but for Tri-Service aircraft that did multi role ? Not really, why would you need 5 gen aircraft to replace A-10 ? Warthog proven to be effective for attack role, also F-16 is multi role aircraft not air superiority.
@@Raptor747 LOL now, they're hailing f-35 as the main air fighter of USA in the future as well as cost are dropping at almost the same level as f16. Though you are absolutely correct, it was horribly mismanaged. It would have been much less costlier.
When playing Arma i always thought that the bradley was a bit off, and while playing i always preferred the british Jackal 2 for Recon ops, and a regular Tank for Tank jobs. to be frank we only used the bradkey as a "heavy recon" to go ahead of a tank platoon.
Sounds pretty realistic. As I've read a Tom Clancy Book (one of the Jack Ryan Series), they had to fight a war against Iran in the Area around Kuwait and the Bradleys pretty much did that, what you guys do: Dig in in positions in front of defensive lines, that are filled with Abrams MBT's, scouting and shooting at softer targets.
@@scottmatheson3346 Certainly not, but what I said does not imply that. Furthermore, I would say those who don't spend their money carefully are yet more likely to spend others' carelessly.
Everyone misses the point with these kind of things. It's not that someone knew there were issues, or that someone overlooked issues, or that people added on too many features making something inefficient at handling any job. The point of this all is that you should understand, most of the world works like this. You will not be able to avoid it. You will absolutely run into people that say they understand this kind of issue, and proceed to do the exact same things on their own projects with you. The lesson is, don't kid yourself in thinking just because you understand what the problems are, that you will be able to avoid them. The reality is, you can't control everything, and you will run into these types of situations where you have to deal with what is presented, because you simply don't have the ability to control whatever dumpster fire of a project you're working on.
One thing people need to remember is that during the development of the Bradley is that there were other programs going on at the time that ended up being canceled the idea was that the Bradley could be used in please of these vehicles
I heard a story about a Soviet engineer who was questioned by his higher ups about why his amphibious airplane cannot go faster on water without flying. He ended up losing his patience and responded with: "There are birds called ducks. They can fly, walk, and swim, but do all that like &*@$."
@@jakzine540 Actually, even under Stalin I have not heard of any engineers/scientists shot for insubordination: sometimes they would get jailed for disciplinary/intimidation purposes (Korolev for example), but communists considered them too valuable a resource to just throw away. And that particular story I think happened under Krustchev or Brezhnev, things were much softer then.
@@DG9-q6f Oh, if it was Krustchev then he may have actually been listened to. Stalin would have shot him and much of his extended family and friends for possibly being right.
@@jakzine540 Oh God, if you don't trust what I wrote try Googling for scientists shot under Stalin. I got this as a first reference: www.jstor.org/stable/40970707 Things were not good back then, but Bolshevik's realization that you can't survive long without listening to people that know stuff softened a lot of angles.
@@DG9-q6f Oh no, I do believe you. I apologize, I'm being a tad...cynical for the sake of humor. I do know for a fact that scientists, as a rule, were viewed with great respect in Soviet Russia throughout its history.
It's very charitable to say Bradley could hold 6 men, that's a VERY tight squeeze, especially with any useful amount of equipment. Compare to the Soviet BMP-1 (which entered mass production in 1966) could very capably deliver 8-fully equipped soldiers and it was well under half the weight with a more powerful turret weapon that was lower profile. Unlike Bradley, BMP-1 can be air-lifted and air-dropped, also amphibious.
@@harrybriscoe7948 Because it would look very similar. Imagine yourself being a soldier with AT equipment and heard someone scream "BMP!" you'd grab your launcher, turn around, wait for your mate to clear your blast and send a rocket within 10 seconds, take anymore time your entire squad/section dies from the MG fire. And then you'll start thinking, "oh wait that thing looks like a different shade of green and that corner there's different, oh god what have I done....." Which is exactly why you don't build your equipment to look like the enemy's.
The BMP-1 is faaaaaaar more cramped than the Bradley is, even with 6 passengers. Look at how much vertical room the troops have and you will see why. The turret weapon is not more powerful as it is for a different purpose, the 2A82 Grom, while having a capable HEAT shell, was only really there to fill in for the dead-zone of the Malyutka missile, and not because the system itself was superb. The Grom was a 73mm cannon that was inaccurate and mostly obsolete past the 1970s, this is why the BMP-2 had a 2A42 30mm Automatic cannon (more comparable to the Bradley's M242 25mm Bushmaster) because not only did it still have some reasonable capacity for killing APCs and light AFVs like the Marder, but it also was superior in the infantry support role, and could reliably engage rotary or low-flying aircraft, something the Grom was incapable of. And no, the BMP-1 is not air-droppable, that would be the BMD-1 which was purpose-built for that role (and the later BMD-2, BMD-3, and now BMD-4).
Hitler: I want a mobile building with a battleship turret mounted on it that would need the entire supply of steel and fuel in Germany to build and run it. German Engineers: Sure thing hittly. Let's call it a mAuS.
Been a m3a3 bradley operator (as a cavalry scout) for 3 years and I must say that vehicle needs some work. I've worked hard enough on it just to keep it running.
The characters were a complete folly as individuals but scary how they actually represent the real corporate military machine as a whole in the procurements branches.
The most funny part about this film, is I experience this every day with Army leaders. In fact I'm having a similar meeting tomorrow, and I'm sure the outcome will be the same as the film.
the issue tends to be the multiple different layers of the military each having their own expectations. The designers expecting a project that doesn't change half way through, lower management (the Col) expecting work flow to be straight forward, and the upper management (the generals) having very little to no knowledge about any of the product or management or engineering and expecting to have what ever they want on a whim and immediately.
Ha! That's a M113A2 with a 50. cal in the drawing. I should know... I drove one for two years in Germany and was the "TC" or Track Commander for the next two years at Fort Benning, GA
BMP-1 is limited as a scout in fundamentally the same way as Bradley, full of troops you can't risk on scouting. But if you left the troops behind, BMP-1 is quieter, lower profile, faster, and best of all; has true amphibious capability, it can drive in and out of water no problem. BMP-1's 73mm gun replicates the firepower of the ww2 Sherman tank's main gun.
fresh out of college and first day at my engineering company: Boss: Great you have all your forms filled out, now you need to watch this. *Proceeds to pull this clip up*
Believe it or not, this film has been used in some of my college courses. It is being used also as an example in my Linux class this semester as well. An example of this, is my Computer Support and Project Management class.
@Psy500 Armored/mechanized infantry isn't regular infantry. Armored/mech infantry use transports as an integral part of their battle strategy for transport, firepower, and storage for heavier weapons. Either way, this is all academic. If an enemy element sees a U.S. IFV/APC, they will employ their available weapons against it. They won't ignore it because "Oh, it's just infantry" or "oh, it's just supplies vital to the war effort. Why oh why would we use our weapons to stop that?"
Having served in a Bradley you can indeed fit 11 people in it with all that ammo, plus constatina wire and C4. There's a cozy place near the driver called the "hell hole" where one can take a nap as long as someone pulls you out on arrival. Can you evacuate if hit? Maybe. If it's on fire the suppression system might kill you first though. The absolute best part of the vehicle though is the easy in and out when your driver hits a tank ditch and you're unable to use the rear hatch while in full battle rattle.
@revolrz22 The point is how the enemy will prioritize the Bradley as a threat, for example what would you target first a BTR (Soviet Armored Personal Carrier) or BMP (Soviet Infantry Fighting Vehicle)? The BTR carriers twice the men but itself is less of a threat then the BMP, yet the both the BMP and BTR has a lower profile then the Bradley thus the Bradley makes a bigger target.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 I mean, the BMP is too. And all of our stuff is usually bigger than what Ivan fields. Also, the BMP might be the bigger threat...but it's armor is like the side of soda can.
Bradley was always an IFV infrantry fighting vehicule and it was like this by design it was never designed to be an APC armored personnel carrier this movie is entirely satire and dont take this seriously
The picture of Ford was pretty blurred too. And since the Bradley launch was VERY much a Reagan administration story it is necessary to give a sense of time to the scene to have a portrait of Reagan. Plus the movie is not anti-Reagan (something I don't like as I loath him), Caspar Weinberger is portrayed as an honest, intelligent, but overworked man being lied to by duplicitous Generals and Admirals.
@@saosalazar5585 I dont remember Carter doing anything productive at all, just saying. Man caused an economic crisis and was so weak that Iran took american citizens hostage for hundreds of days. If all it took to be a good leader was to not get troops killed history would remember Neville Chamberlain a lot more fondly.
Wes Janson So, Iran took the hostages because Carter was weak? It wasn’t because the US had been funding the brutal dictator they just had a revolution to overthrow? You sure on that?
Mind you, the Bradliey turned out alright after all and it's long gestation gave engineers time to fix the many flaws of the BMP, which the Soviets rushed into production.
@Psy500 That's not how TO&E works. In most nations a troop transport is an organic part of a unit, not a battle taxy that just drives troops somewhere and strands them in the middle of a war zone. Destroying enemy combatants while they're in a transport is more favorable than waiting until they disembark and deploy in such a way that makes them harder to target.
Er, no. If the troop transport is meant to destroy enemy troops, why the fuck not just make a tank instead? It's better protected, has better firepower, faster, and smaller for such capabilities by virtue of not having to also carry troops. Transports are meant for carrying people from Point A to Point B, and that's it. It might be designed to also protect those troops while they're being transported, since dead soldiers are of no use to anyone, and it might even have a little firepower to support those troops while they're being unloaded (or loaded), but if you want a vehicle meant to actually destroy the enemy, you build a vehicle specifically for that purpose. It's like attaching a bayonet to a sniper rifle. At that point, you'd be better off just using a sniper rifle and a pistol.
Odd that in the end the M2A2 Bradley, with all the so called flaws the critics claim, turned out to be a very good Armor Vehicle to transport Infantry soldiers and provide support for them with its 7.62mm and its 25mm chain gun. Oh and one more thing folks.... Did you know that the M2A2 Bradley TOW anti-tank missiles have killed more enemy tanks then the M1A1 Abrams during the 1st Gulf War?
11B Retired ya and the m16 has killed a lot of bad guys but it had/has some flaws that got a lot of people killed. The bradly is very dangerous to the people inside of the vehicle and can be taken out with pretty much any enemy anti tank weapon
I've worked in Aerospace, worked on airplanes for a big company, not gonna say which one, but it starts with a B and ends with G. The Generals in this movie remind me of the old guys in charge of designs there.
First, thanks for posting. This scene reoccurs also in the private sector every day. Answering the other questions, it's title is "The Pentagon Wars" and it is still available. The copy I own also has Spanish and French both subtitled And audio overdubbed. It has Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes, Richard Benjamin and a lot of other established actors. The DVD comes with an interesting Audio Commentary option by Benjamin.
Imagine the trying to repurpose it. “We need to turn it into a scout!” “Sir, it has a loud auto cannon on the tip.” “Well, couldn’t you make it more silent? Maybe put a silencer or muffler on it?” Designer: “that means you get less power and operational time and more maintenance” “Well, all I know is that we need a scout and this baby already exists”
"sir,it is a troop carrier"
"so, make a couple extra trips, whats the difference?"
this is hilarious
except that is an actual quote cause this ACTUALLY HAPPENED
It's not a troop Carrier it was never designed to be a troop Carrier that's what this movie gets wrong that's what James Burton got wrong in his s***** f****** book
@@WardNightstone no it isn't lol, this movie is a comedy
@@WardNightstone the movie heavily over dramatized not to mention the Air Force officer assigned to oversee the Bradley was heavily against anything new even radar equipped planes and guided munitions. Basically he wanted to have planes doing straffing runs on anti aircraft guns.
@@rc59191 yeah much better we use smart bomb equipped stealth bombers on $1.50 jihadi tents
I feel like the dialogue from the generals are direct quotes in some cases.
Must be!
What kind of General wants a scout, troop transport, and anti-tank vehicle all in one?
@@mq5731 A pro-active General who knows that modern problems require modern solutions.
Micheal Quimpo the kind who has never heard of the concept of variants and doesn’t realize that such a combination is silly except on paper.
@@mq5731 They didnt. Each general had a different objective. One wanted a scout. One wanted an anti-tank vehicle. Evidently the original general that wanted a troop carrier must not have been present because he didnt object to cutting the number of troops it carried. Otherwise it would have ended up even bigger.
A more common scenario:
Sr Engineer makes design error.
Jr Engineer catches it in time to prevent a problem.
Sr Engineer gets angry at uppity youngster, does not fix error.
Manager sides with older Sr Engineer because he's older and they've worked together a long time.
Project fails.
Jr Engineer is not invited to "Lessons Learned" meeting.
Everyone just remembers that the Jr Engineer didn't get along with the team.
same thing happens in critical care medicine
That's rather specific...
Wanderer628 he needs a hug. They left him out of the meeting.
Been there hold on kid you're time will come
No need to go to the "Lessons Learned" meeting, he has nothing to learn and everybody would say he is too confident and arrogant.
"a troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C."
Kills me everytime.
i liked the look of the bradley... but when you say it like that...
Sounds like a gloryfied ammo-carrier to me.
Interesting fact, the Bradley and older M60 A3 had superior night vision sights then the Gulf War-era Abrams. At the Abrams used a sights with a lower resolution, than the previous generation. As far as a night reconnaissance vehicle it worked perfectly fine.
The real issue is that it was mediocre as a troop transport. Since it never was able capable of carrying a full squad. Requiring the squad to be split between 2 Bradleys.
Just enough freedom
The issue is that quotes full of s*** it's not a troop Carrier it's an infantry fighting vehicle it can carry some troops but it's not designed to do that solely it is not too conspicuous to do reconnaissance it actually performed rather well in that role during the first Gulf war so that part of the quote is right out and a turreted ifv was by no means A New concept at the time the Soviets had done it the Germans had done it the British were going to do it and the Bradley's armor was designed to withstand 14.7 mm HMG fire if you bolted too much armor on it it wouldn't be able to perform its designated roles
Every decent software developer has experienced this at least once and many experience it perpetually. I'd say it's actually worse in software because you get a lot more "I don't know how to explain what I want, but just keep making changes, I'll know it when I see it" and "what do you mean it costs X? it's just lines of code, not tangible goods".
What do you do with something that has no tangible monetary value, but you'd like it to?
You convince someone to buy it off you for tangible money.
@@matthewwaddington2777 the scientific term would be "sell it"
Oh, you lucky software folks have no idea what mechanical product designers have to go through.
The above is actually routine in even automotive design process...
It's the nature of modern management reflected through board rooms and committee decision. Everyone gets to put in their 0.02c because of politics, so the major decisions are anchored on keeping everyone happy rather than choosing a single focus. This method has its pros and cons, it just so happened that in the Bradley's case it was all of the cons.
You can see his soul wither and die and his face drop when he realizes that generals are going to ask him to make the tank amphibious next.
That's one great acting.
- You know what cornel?
- You should go and ad on some wings and call it an F35
But why don't we add more seats in the back? You know, like a troop carrier?
nahh this way to cheap it only wasted billions now the f35 that that thing wasted trillions of dollar
F35 is a jet fighter which is not too agile toe to toe with enemy fighter, a fighter which suppose to do a recon but has less range than the Cessna but can carry a nuke that can take down half of entire DC.
@@bramantios5797
Perfect General!
Oh why not also make it submersible, so it can go under rivers and things to sneak up on the enemy!
The lesson: something designed to do everything decent, can do nothing well.
Soviet and then Russian BMPs are like this even back in the early days.
@GM Steelhaven beat me to it. As an another object lesson, and proof that we never learn, the F111 was the original "All services" plane that didn't work because of different requirements for each service.
@@orlock20 Except there are BMPs(IFV), BMDs(marine and paratrooper IFV), BTRs(APC), BRM-K(scout IFV), BTR-D(APC on BMD chassis) and so on. So soviets decided that if we need 10 vehicles, we WOULD make 10 vehicles. We'll just make a good platform for it and try to use universal components. Something that Bradley could have been too. Thankfully there are other NATO members as well as IDF from whom actually good vehicles can be purchased. And I wouldn't be surprised if US will eventually just adopt IDF equipement that uses soviet like approach in many regards(unsurprisingly:))
The real lesson: Appropriations and Acquisitions (in the DoD) is ran by people with agendas ("This will get me promoted!") leading to projects such as the M2 that had guaranteed funding being the target of a buttload of what's known as feature creep. Again, all because someone(s) want to be promoted.
Hmmmmmm. The F-35 comes to mind 😁
The Iowa Class battleship, started off as a troop carrier.
The hell you going to protect all those troops with no guns?
meant for land.
@
PickledOnion *_"The Iowa Class battleship, started off as a troop carrier."_*
Nope, that simply ain't true! 'Cause they were originally planned as a mere LCTs, but then came 20 mm Oerlikons, 40 mm pom-poms, 4.7-inch QF-guns, 5 inch rockets... *;-)*
@@letoubib21 it was a joke
It started as a kayak.
When I was assigned at the DoD Inspector General's office, this film was used as part of the introductory training for new special investigators. Before anyone tries to claim this is Hollywood fiction, try reading the book "Pentagon Wars" by Col. James Burton (the character played by Cary Elwes in the film) -- it's a disturbingly accurate recounting of the way that programs are run by the Defense industry, full of corruption, lies, deceit, and runaway greed that puts the lives of our Service men and women at serious risk, simply to enhance profits for corporate America.
business as usual
I just want to say thank you for your service.
Not only in U.S, I think all countries are like that because all countries has two things in common man and money. Regulation helps but it can only do much.
My boss made me watch this movie when I started my first job after college.
Lancer, I was assigned to a Cavalry unit and we used the Bradley as a scouting vehicle. When I saw this monstrosity, I laughed. I don't know how the vehicle performed in actual combat, but I know it wasn't stealthy or quiet enough to be effective.
When people forget that idioms exist for a reason.
_Too_ _many_ _cooks_ _spoiled_ _the_ _broth_
I thought that was an aphorism...
Too many crooks, surely?
too many ideas = no idea
Too many politics.
Too many cocks in one mouth
From a comedy perspective it looks like the US version of "Yes minister/prime minister".
I would actually agree. Both are scarily accurate
I will second that perception.
except it's a true story
@@WardNightstoneNo it isn’t. The only thing realistic in this movie was that a Bradley is a vehicle that exists.
The performance of the M2 Bradley was impressive during the Persian Gulf War due to its extensive anti-tank weaponry. It destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the M1 Abrams main battle tanks did, and only 3 Bradleys were destroyed by enemy fire. So long as it was able to get in the first hit on they enemy, its weaker armor didn't matter that much. However, they were somehow prone to friendly fire, with 17 Bradleys destroyed by Coalition friendly fire during the war.
During the 2003 Iraq War, through, they proved very vulnerable to bombings and RPG attacks from insurgent terrorists, due to their weak armor and not being able to land the first hit on enemy ambushes. About 150 Bradleys were destroyed and 700-1000 damaged, and were later phased out and replaced by the much-better armored (though significantly less-armed) MRAPs.
In counterinsurgency operations, being able to tank hits from enemies you can't even see coming is much more important than pure firepower.
_only 3 Bradleys were destroyed by enemy fire_ or so told by the Pentagon, but little do you know that not only did they loose hundreds of the fucking things during the first war, they also lost multiple Abram tanks.
If there is one thing is to never believe the American government when they say anything, its always underrepresented.
And you can thank the performance of the M2 Bradley in large part due to the efforts of Col. James Burton to save and fix this mess. It took a billion dollars of upgrades to take what we see in the movie to the one that saw combat. One of the points the movie, and book by the same title, made was to show how certain people inside Pentagon at the time were willing to cut any corner to push out faulty systems.
In the case of armor they had the idea that divisions through numbers and attrition, even if the tanks were poor, would win the day. After all it worked against Germany in WW2 and the numbers won the cold war so how could it be wrong? Well Col. Burton was one of a group of people who knew that Maneuver, not Attrition, wins battle more, and that if you end up in an attrition battle, you've done something stupid.
@@lordhawkeye Well, I certainly don't dispute Colonel Burton's efforts, he certainly seems like he spent a stupendous effort and had a hard time getting the thing operational while placating the impossible demands of his superiors.
At the very least, attrition battles should be avoided whenever possible, a last resort in case everything goes belly-up
'they loose hundreds' Do you mean lose?
@@SMGJohn you cant come to an argument with no data and claim that the opponents "your data is lies" " so told by the Pentagon,"
unless you want to be seen with a person of average intellegence
This makes me feel sorry for product engineers who work for managers who have no understanding of engineering and yet ask for what isn't possible.
Ayy... my company is dealing with a government department. They are now asking us to deliver extra features beyond the scope of the contract & agreed guidelines, for no extra time extension or funds. They claim it will speed up the project, but the back and forth is eating into the time left before the deadline...
In my position its the sales team that are guilty of this. Then we have to kill oportunities right away or pull back on thousands of dollars worth of bull shit promises we cant keep.
This is one of my favorite movies of its type. The worst part is that I have worked for the U.S. Government for over 28 years. Every part of this series of "design changes" is ABSOLUTELY true to form. NOBODY can keep their fingers from the "design pie." Everyone wants to leave his or her "scent" on it, like a dog walking past posts and fire hydrants. It went from carrying 11 troops and a driver down to 5 troops and a driver. One of the guys I worked with actually was a U.S. Army officer who would ride with the troops. He says it worked as a transport but was slow and heavy. He says that the movie was so accurate in discussing the short-comings that it was almost eerie.
Well it is called the Military Complex for a reason.
A thing that it makes me sad is how hard people try to “deboonk” this film like there’s no tomorrow, defending the complex like their life depends on it
Sure, the Bradley has had some successes, but look at Ukraine, at its first combat engagement it got blown up
7:31 I've been a bird colonel for so long, i swear I've grown feathers lol
Oh hey I worked on this in 2006, on the amphibious version! Too bad the wheels were too spaced to do solid landing, and the landing shield kept breaking under the weight of the armor. Fun stuff.
EFV?
you worked on the design ??? Im really curious
Was it true they really broke 4 of them trying to make it work?
The Port Hole on the side was actually a soviet design. Not kidding, BTR if I remember right, it was designed to be air tight in case of nuclear attack and had port holes specifically designed to fit the muzzle of an AK-47 (which i always found extremely contradictory).
@warhawk9566:
That's not the worst of it! They didn't want to go with a Porthole for weapons, *BUT* a weapon mounted into a Ball-Mount that the trooper could use, while looking out throw a 3-view finder! They came up with a whole new version of a Belt-Fed A.R.!
Had they gone with a Belt-Fed version of,...oh,... say an M-3 Greasegun in .45ACP, or a British Sten in 9mm, or a M.A.C.-10, or even better: an Owens (something that hardly if ever jams), then it's be great! Too bad the vehicle wont survive getting hit with a HEAT Round! *_:(_*
@@Dreaded88 And in practice the weapon ports on either the Brad or BMP proved to be pretty useless. The only real difference is that the US spent a lot more money (as it usually does) on overly complicated ball sockets and a whole weapon for it (M-231, not belt fed but a full auto only M-16).
@@jamestheotherone742 Not entirely useless. Someone inside can pass a Mars bar to the troop outside without having to open the hatch. Make the vehicle a great Mars bar carrier. It's air conditioned so the bars wont melt. It's armored so the enemy can't shoot nor steal the bar.
@@fadlya.rahman4113 Neither are air conditioned. The M-2/3 doesn't even have the sockets anymore. They are blanked over by armor plate.
@@jamestheotherone742 Really? I've been inside two type of armored vehicles and both have air conditioning.
I'm the project lead on a product development and I'm living the Colonel's life right now.
FML, everyday
It's called 'requirements-creep'. High ranking civilians are a thousand times worse at requirement-creep than generals. Oh great video.
It's also frequent outside of the military and even outside of government.
The difference is though that private companies much more cash-oriented and have effective ways to mitigate this problem. Governments do not.
feature creep to us software developers.
Scope creep to mission oriented orgs
@@jonesjohnson6301 Bullshit. Only someone completely ignorant about big corporations can say this. Also, government doesn't pay a minister or general 50 mln $ for warming chair while underlings do all the work, so STFU and educate yourself.
@@KuK137 KuK137 lol Do you even have experience in commissioinng, operations or design? You sound ignorant AF spewing socio-political tripe. His statements are correct, private and government sectors control processes are different. Public-private entities with special interest can lean on legislation to create new revenue streams and utilities can push off their borrowing habits onto the taxpayer. Private entities either borrow and/or leverage their assets, rely on underlying profit from revenue or split company shares to fundraise to broaden investor base. So project management in the private sector have their scopes of work for projects skewed towards effectiveness. And the government does pay 50 million for stooge managers, go read about the corruption of the construction company Judlau. And guess what no one gets fired on the gov end, so if anyone is ignorant its you.
"You can't hurt anybody with that pansy ass gun. Add on some firepower." @ 2:41
You know what? I'm gonna watch this funny movie!!
It’s a good one, HBO did it. A little exaggerated but pretty spot on at the same time with all that is wrong with the acquisition process with good laughs and acting.
This happens more often in human resources as well.
Yes. I was operations director for a company and would regularly work passed midnight because the owner kept demanding impossible things then I had to be the bad cop that fired one of the telemarketers for doping his wife with wine. It was worse than herding cats, we let staff smoke in the garage yet they would still do it in the bathroom incessantly.
I've ridden in one of these things... This is ... *SOOO* true! The difference between this and the M113 is ... amazing!
Now add Congress' fingers into the mix "build it in my district"
I like how quickly he starts talking to them like they are children.
07:04 Anti tank missiles? Where do I put them? The men will have to wear missiles as hats.
Haha I wanna see that so bad.
Go look up the Basic Instructions webcomic.
I like how his hair gets thinner and thinner as the bradley gets heavier and taller
Stress.
Early development of Toby from The West Wing.
Honestly if they had given Toby this guy's backstory it would have been perfectly believable why he hated everybody.
The Navy's LCS program has turned out much the same.
A surface combatant with less anti-ship weapons than an Iranian motorboat
A sub chaser without ASW weapons or the endurance to chase subs
A mine sweeper that can't meet any explosive shock standards
And, oh yes, behind schedule and over budget.
Spot on! LCS= little crappy ship! If it were up to me we would sell them to Latin American navies at bargain basement prices or Gove them to the coast guard. If a Latin navy bought some I would recommend gun upgrade to 76mm and make sure you get some Harpoon and RAM missiles installed. Btw.... uss Gabi giffords... wtf? She didn't do jack shit for our nation.
The Bradley was actually under budget.
Floats, carries troops, lightly armoured, big guns...they made a cleveland class light cruiser.
The _Cleveland_ class cruiser was pretty heavily armored for any light cruiser of the era. The German light cruisers only had 50mm. on their belts, the _Cleveland_ had at its thickest 127mm. Italy and France varied. And Japan and Britain were generally better armored than the previous three.
"Has less armor than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take down half of D.C."
"Fantastic"
In a lot of ways, I think this film could apply to the software world a little too closely lol
4:15~4:45 is one of my favourite scenes. As is the description at the end of the clip.
yes, yes it can, very much so....
Can't your engineering wizards just conjure up a couple lines of extra code?
(This phrase would always trigger fantasies of me going totally RAMBO on the good-idea-fairies)
This is basically what happen to the F-22 and F-35. Except instead of generals adding things it didn't need to it, it was politicians.
Er, no? The F-22 wasn't developed like this at all. It was supposed to be a 5th-generation, stealth air superiority fighter, and that's exactly what it is. It wasn't designed to do more things than the original concept called for. It's not carrier-capable, it's not meant to carry bombs, it's not meant to have VTOL/STOL capability, it's not meant to be cheap...and it isn't.
The F-35 was really horribly mismanaged, particularly with the program trying to build three different aircraft at once, but using the same airframe and as much parts commonality as possible, while also producing and delivering fighters before the program was even complete. It was a mess in management.
SaltyWaffles
The aircraft itself (f-35) does fine though. It wasn’t supposed to gain air superiority like the F-22 and F-16
@@ReformedSooner24 it does pretty good, but for Tri-Service aircraft that did multi role ? Not really, why would you need 5 gen aircraft to replace A-10 ? Warthog proven to be effective for attack role, also F-16 is multi role aircraft not air superiority.
@@Raptor747 LOL now, they're hailing f-35 as the main air fighter of USA in the future as well as cost are dropping at almost the same level as f16. Though you are absolutely correct, it was horribly mismanaged. It would have been much less costlier.
Gray Jedi why would they buy a thousand?
When playing Arma i always thought that the bradley was a bit off, and while playing i always preferred the british Jackal 2 for Recon ops, and a regular Tank for Tank jobs. to be frank we only used the bradkey as a "heavy recon" to go ahead of a tank platoon.
Sounds pretty realistic. As I've read a Tom Clancy Book (one of the Jack Ryan Series), they had to fight a war against Iran in the Area around Kuwait and the Bradleys pretty much did that, what you guys do: Dig in in positions in front of defensive lines, that are filled with Abrams MBT's, scouting and shooting at softer targets.
"I've been a bird colonel so long, I swear i'm growing feathers!"
Former Marine here. I have this film and still watch it and 'Catch 22' to giggle at the military mindset.
Ironically, this turned out to be a magnificent vehicle that performed superbly In combat.
This was recommended on Milton Friedman. I think the lesson is nobody spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.
You think people spend their own money carefully?
@@scottmatheson3346 Certainly not, but what I said does not imply that. Furthermore, I would say those who don't spend their money carefully are yet more likely to spend others' carelessly.
Everyone misses the point with these kind of things. It's not that someone knew there were issues, or that someone overlooked issues, or that people added on too many features making something inefficient at handling any job.
The point of this all is that you should understand, most of the world works like this. You will not be able to avoid it. You will absolutely run into people that say they understand this kind of issue, and proceed to do the exact same things on their own projects with you.
The lesson is, don't kid yourself in thinking just because you understand what the problems are, that you will be able to avoid them. The reality is, you can't control everything, and you will run into these types of situations where you have to deal with what is presented, because you simply don't have the ability to control whatever dumpster fire of a project you're working on.
This is one of the most hilarious American comedy I have ever seen
I am so glad we have CAD now.
All hail CAD
One thing people need to remember is that during the development of the Bradley is that there were other programs going on at the time that ended up being canceled the idea was that the Bradley could be used in please of these vehicles
"A Jack of all trades - master of none"
Oddjuice but sometimes better than a master of one.
@@browad891 not when lives are on the line
I heard a story about a Soviet engineer who was questioned by his higher ups about why his amphibious airplane cannot go faster on water without flying. He ended up losing his patience and responded with: "There are birds called ducks. They can fly, walk, and swim, but do all that like &*@$."
Sad part is it's possible that he was shot the next day.
@@jakzine540 Actually, even under Stalin I have not heard of any engineers/scientists shot for insubordination: sometimes they would get jailed for disciplinary/intimidation purposes (Korolev for example), but communists considered them too valuable a resource to just throw away. And that particular story I think happened under Krustchev or Brezhnev, things were much softer then.
@@DG9-q6f Oh, if it was Krustchev then he may have actually been listened to. Stalin would have shot him and much of his extended family and friends for possibly being right.
@@jakzine540 Oh God, if you don't trust what I wrote try Googling for scientists shot under Stalin. I got this as a first reference:
www.jstor.org/stable/40970707
Things were not good back then, but Bolshevik's realization that you can't survive long without listening to people that know stuff softened a lot of angles.
@@DG9-q6f Oh no, I do believe you. I apologize, I'm being a tad...cynical for the sake of humor. I do know for a fact that scientists, as a rule, were viewed with great respect in Soviet Russia throughout its history.
This feels like a documentary.
It is
@@alexanderjohnson3014
It's not
@@alexanderjohnson3014No it isn’t. Colonel Burton is a liar.
"Ich bin ein Truppen Transporter, kein Panzer, bitte nicht schießen!"
One down, 49 to go. Then you have to design the sign and its placement on the vehicle.
Ako ay isa taga karga ng mga sundalo hindi ako tangke that's two
Is iompróir trúpaí mé, ní umar, ná déan caitheamh orm
Ini Pengangkut Askar, bukan Kereta Kebal, SILA JANGAN TEMBAK!
¡Este no es un tanque, es un vehículo de transporte de tropas!
damn, it still sound as, here here, shoot me!
It's very charitable to say Bradley could hold 6 men, that's a VERY tight squeeze, especially with any useful amount of equipment.
Compare to the Soviet BMP-1 (which entered mass production in 1966) could very capably deliver 8-fully equipped soldiers and it was well under half the weight with a more powerful turret weapon that was lower profile. Unlike Bradley, BMP-1 can be air-lifted and air-dropped, also amphibious.
Why didn't they just copy that ?
@@harrybriscoe7948 Because it would look very similar. Imagine yourself being a soldier with AT equipment and heard someone scream "BMP!" you'd grab your launcher, turn around, wait for your mate to clear your blast and send a rocket within 10 seconds, take anymore time your entire squad/section dies from the MG fire. And then you'll start thinking, "oh wait that thing looks like a different shade of green and that corner there's different, oh god what have I done....." Which is exactly why you don't build your equipment to look like the enemy's.
The BMP-1 is faaaaaaar more cramped than the Bradley is, even with 6 passengers. Look at how much vertical room the troops have and you will see why. The turret weapon is not more powerful as it is for a different purpose, the 2A82 Grom, while having a capable HEAT shell, was only really there to fill in for the dead-zone of the Malyutka missile, and not because the system itself was superb. The Grom was a 73mm cannon that was inaccurate and mostly obsolete past the 1970s, this is why the BMP-2 had a 2A42 30mm Automatic cannon (more comparable to the Bradley's M242 25mm Bushmaster) because not only did it still have some reasonable capacity for killing APCs and light AFVs like the Marder, but it also was superior in the infantry support role, and could reliably engage rotary or low-flying aircraft, something the Grom was incapable of. And no, the BMP-1 is not air-droppable, that would be the BMD-1 which was purpose-built for that role (and the later BMD-2, BMD-3, and now BMD-4).
General: Add wings to it.
And so the F-35 was born.
Funny story there nations that tried to make flying ranks/armored personnel carriers.
Legend has it they are still working on making it work to this very day....
;)
Less armor than a snowblower? I dunno about that. Some of those old Massey-Fergusons were BEASTS!
Portholes to shoot people, this guy belongs in warhammer
Sadly this is not an isolated incident.
This was a great movie, and a perfect follow-up for Kelsey Grammer after Down Periscope
STRIPES, DOWN PERISCOPE, and PENTAGON WARS.
Fantastic triple feature. For a quad, add DR. STRANGELOVE.
As an IT person, I can relate to this deeply.
Say what you want about it, the minutes my eyes has fall in it on the military channel as a kid I have fall in love with it...
Hitler: I want a mobile building with a battleship turret mounted on it that would need the entire supply of steel and fuel in Germany to build and run it.
German Engineers: Sure thing hittly. Let's call it a mAuS.
Wow so funny and original!
@@tatumergo3931 as a wise man once said. Oops.
7:38 _”now if you have to design hats to hold those goddamn missiles than just do it”_ 🤣😂
Been a m3a3 bradley operator (as a cavalry scout) for 3 years and I must say that vehicle needs some work. I've worked hard enough on it just to keep it running.
The characters were a complete folly as individuals but scary how they actually represent the real corporate military machine as a whole in the procurements branches.
Looks almost exactly like the procurement process for the royal canadian navy
"You cant hurt anybody with that pansy ass gun"
A quote my old LT would be proud of, his motto was; bigger problem = bigger hammer.
He refers to the gathering as "ladies and gentlemen" whereas the room has all men😂😂
Years of stress will do that to any person. I feel his pain.
The most funny part about this film, is I experience this every day with Army leaders. In fact I'm having a similar meeting tomorrow, and I'm sure the outcome will be the same as the film.
Yep. That's project management in a nutshell.
the issue tends to be the multiple different layers of the military each having their own expectations. The designers expecting a project that doesn't change half way through, lower management (the Col) expecting work flow to be straight forward, and the upper management (the generals) having very little to no knowledge about any of the product or management or engineering and expecting to have what ever they want on a whim and immediately.
The end result fortunately still ended up exceptional. especially considering what it went through.
But can the BMP-1 act as a scout with enough firepower to blow up half of DC?
Ha! That's a M113A2 with a 50. cal in the drawing. I should know... I drove one for two years in Germany and was the "TC" or Track Commander for the next two years at Fort Benning, GA
BMP-1 is limited as a scout in fundamentally the same way as Bradley, full of troops you can't risk on scouting.
But if you left the troops behind, BMP-1 is quieter, lower profile, faster, and best of all; has true amphibious capability, it can drive in and out of water no problem.
BMP-1's 73mm gun replicates the firepower of the ww2 Sherman tank's main gun.
fresh out of college and first day at my engineering company:
Boss: Great you have all your forms filled out, now you need to watch this. *Proceeds to pull this clip up*
I've been a bird colonel so long I swear I'm growing feathers!!
Believe it or not, this film has been used in some of my college courses. It is being used also as an example in my Linux class this semester as well. An example of this, is my Computer Support and Project Management class.
@Psy500
Armored/mechanized infantry isn't regular infantry. Armored/mech infantry use transports as an integral part of their battle strategy for transport, firepower, and storage for heavier weapons.
Either way, this is all academic. If an enemy element sees a U.S. IFV/APC, they will employ their available weapons against it. They won't ignore it because "Oh, it's just infantry" or "oh, it's just supplies vital to the war effort. Why oh why would we use our weapons to stop that?"
I watched this one all the way through again recently and it still made me yell at the tv
Sounds like a potential home owner working with an architect and builders.
Do you want me to put a sign on it that says, " I'm a troop carrier not a tank, so don't shoot at me?".
Me : 💀
I remember when the Bradley came out. It definitely was more impressive than the M113.
Having served in a Bradley you can indeed fit 11 people in it with all that ammo, plus constatina wire and C4. There's a cozy place near the driver called the "hell hole" where one can take a nap as long as someone pulls you out on arrival. Can you evacuate if hit? Maybe. If it's on fire the suppression system might kill you first though. The absolute best part of the vehicle though is the easy in and out when your driver hits a tank ditch and you're unable to use the rear hatch while in full battle rattle.
@revolrz22
The point is how the enemy will prioritize the Bradley as a threat, for example what would you target first a BTR (Soviet Armored Personal Carrier) or BMP (Soviet Infantry Fighting Vehicle)? The BTR carriers twice the men but itself is less of a threat then the BMP, yet the both the BMP and BTR has a lower profile then the Bradley thus the Bradley makes a bigger target.
Plus since the Bradley is a tarcked vehicle.it makes a hell of a lot of noise.making it useless as a scout vehicle.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 I mean, the BMP is too. And all of our stuff is usually bigger than what Ivan fields. Also, the BMP might be the bigger threat...but it's armor is like the side of soda can.
Bradley was always an IFV infrantry fighting vehicule and it was like this by design it was never designed to be an APC armored personnel carrier this movie is entirely satire and dont take this seriously
Portraits of Nixon and Reagan were clear as day, Carter was blurred out in the background. Surely that's just a coincidence, right Hollywood? lol
It IS a coincidence, Bob!
The picture of Ford was pretty blurred too. And since the Bradley launch was VERY much a Reagan administration story it is necessary to give a sense of time to the scene to have a portrait of Reagan. Plus the movie is not anti-Reagan (something I don't like as I loath him), Caspar Weinberger is portrayed as an honest, intelligent, but overworked man being lied to by duplicitous Generals and Admirals.
Don't remember Carter getting troops killed....js
@@saosalazar5585 I dont remember Carter doing anything productive at all, just saying. Man caused an economic crisis and was so weak that Iran took american citizens hostage for hundreds of days. If all it took to be a good leader was to not get troops killed history would remember Neville Chamberlain a lot more fondly.
Wes Janson So, Iran took the hostages because Carter was weak? It wasn’t because the US had been funding the brutal dictator they just had a revolution to overthrow? You sure on that?
Mind you, the Bradliey turned out alright after all and it's long gestation gave engineers time to fix the many flaws of the BMP, which the Soviets rushed into production.
"Ladies and gentlemen..." while addressing room filled entirely with guys.
Richard Riehle from "Office Space" as one of the generals, lulz.
@Psy500
That's not how TO&E works. In most nations a troop transport is an organic part of a unit, not a battle taxy that just drives troops somewhere and strands them in the middle of a war zone.
Destroying enemy combatants while they're in a transport is more favorable than waiting until they disembark and deploy in such a way that makes them harder to target.
Er, no. If the troop transport is meant to destroy enemy troops, why the fuck not just make a tank instead? It's better protected, has better firepower, faster, and smaller for such capabilities by virtue of not having to also carry troops.
Transports are meant for carrying people from Point A to Point B, and that's it. It might be designed to also protect those troops while they're being transported, since dead soldiers are of no use to anyone, and it might even have a little firepower to support those troops while they're being unloaded (or loaded), but if you want a vehicle meant to actually destroy the enemy, you build a vehicle specifically for that purpose.
It's like attaching a bayonet to a sniper rifle. At that point, you'd be better off just using a sniper rifle and a pistol.
In case you're wondering which movie is it. It's he "The Pentagon Wars (1998)"
Well, we already had such a product, its called ZBL-08 8x8 vehicle family...
The amount of sheer idiocy that was in the US military at that time is spectacular.
Seems like the same team that designed the Bradley IFV came back from retirement to design the F35 😂
Finally a good recommendation from TH-cam.
I'm so proud to have been a part of this production.
My brother in Christ, this movie gave the wrong idea about the Bradley to millions of people.
a lot of good actors here! specially the guy who plays the chief in " special victims unit "
Odd that in the end the M2A2 Bradley, with all the so called flaws the critics claim, turned out to be a very good Armor Vehicle to transport Infantry soldiers and provide support for them with its 7.62mm and its 25mm chain gun.
Oh and one more thing folks.... Did you know that the M2A2 Bradley TOW anti-tank missiles have killed more enemy tanks then the M1A1 Abrams during the 1st Gulf War?
11B Retired ya and the m16 has killed a lot of bad guys but it had/has some flaws that got a lot of people killed. The bradly is very dangerous to the people inside of the vehicle and can be taken out with pretty much any enemy anti tank weapon
@@dead-in-the-head3960 man it's almost like the bradley isnt a tank
And that's why modular vehicle kits have since become a thing for non-MBT vehicles since as early as the mid 1970s. :D
Every time I ever heard "too big to fail" I thought of _The Pentagon Wars_ for reasons that should be obvious.
I've worked in Aerospace, worked on airplanes for a big company, not gonna say which one, but it starts with a B and ends with G. The Generals in this movie remind me of the old guys in charge of designs there.
I didn’t know Eddie from Jurassic Park was in the military
First, thanks for posting. This scene reoccurs also in the private sector every day.
Answering the other questions, it's title is "The Pentagon Wars" and it is still available. The copy I own also has Spanish and French both subtitled And audio overdubbed. It has Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes, Richard Benjamin and a lot of other established actors. The DVD comes with an interesting Audio Commentary option by Benjamin.
Probably the same kind of people that want the A-10 out of business
Imagine the trying to repurpose it.
“We need to turn it into a scout!”
“Sir, it has a loud auto cannon on the tip.”
“Well, couldn’t you make it more silent? Maybe put a silencer or muffler on it?”
Designer: “that means you get less power and operational time and more maintenance”
“Well, all I know is that we need a scout and this baby already exists”
A camel is a horse designed by committee. An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
The guys at Lockheed Martin should've seen this coming with their F-35s
This is the military. Truth from start to finish.