This Is Why the U.S. Army Wants to Replace Bradley Fighting Vehicle
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2020
- The Bradley Fighting Vehicle has serviced the U.S. Military for nearly four decades, but the service, try as it might, can't seem to effectively develop a replacement.
The Army has officially cancelled its current solicitation for its Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) replacement for the M2 Bradley, the service announced on Thursday, in order to "revisit the requirements, acquisition strategy and schedule" before moving forward with prototyping.
U.S. Army Photo by Visual Information Specialist Gertrud Zach Released - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
"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."
I was watching that movie last night
Great film.
Now, lets make it fly, and call it the F-35!
seventeen years.. fourteen billion dollars...
They're building it?
"This Is Why the U.S. Army Wants to Replace Bradley Fighting Vehicle" *pentagon wars flashbacks*
I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING😂
....but it's a troop carrier, not a tank.
"Do you want me to put a sign on it in 50 different languages that I'm a troop carrier not a tank please don't shoot at me?" XD great scene
good movie, Kelsey Grammer in his prime - old enough that no one complains that it has been uploaded to TH-cam
INDEED!!!
3:50 "portholes? what are we, the navy?"
Say, can you make it amphibious?
Portholes for troops to fire personal weapons out from inside the vehicle.
@@chrisclark5204 It is a joke referring to the film Pentagon Wars
R/swooooosh
@@chrisclark5204 They can also be used to fire something else personally on the enemy.
“We gonna be selling them to El Presidente Chimichanga in no time"
Al chile if that happens we gonna use tacos de suadero as Main ammo
Pentagon Wars lol
I think narco burrito just bought 2 and a half of them lol
I hate it always being said that the Bradley lacked against tanks. It wasn't designed to go head to head with tanks. It was designed to take on Russian Mechanized Infantry vehicles like BMPs and BRDMs. It was given a TOW launcher for anti tank capability. I worked on them for 6 years. It is very capable of doing what it was designed for and intended to do.
Chris Clark Agreed
Chris Clark ....absolutely agree ...just like the British warrior it does what it was designed to do and the Bradley does it brilliantly !!
You make the point of the video. That was then. Now they expect to face tanks, thus they need a new vehicle that can also take on tanks. An IFV/tank destroyer. Actually not hard at all, the military industrial complex is sabotaging this.
why replace a proven piece of military equipment that has proven its self...even in combat..there may been several variants of the bradley....but everytime it has proven its self. no matter what the dept of defence wants to claim....dont fix anything thats not broken
A: it is nature of military product development.
I first served in M113’s in West Germany in 1974 in the 1st Armored Division as an 11B Infantryman. They were considered to be aluminum coffins, under gunned and under armored.
I was very pleased to transition into M2 Bradley’s during my third tour of Germany in 1986 while serving with the 2nd Armored Division (Forward) as an 11M Infantryman.
I was pleased with the performance of the Bradley during Desert Shield/Desert Storm while serving with the 1st Calvary Division In Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 1991-1992.
In your opinion would the vehicle be more useful if they didn't pop a turret on the top of it? If they'd kept the Bradley as a sort of MTLB-equivalent I imagine it would've been a more commercially successful vehicle (Like the M113 it as meant to replace)
BirdyLegs
I believe that the design of the vehicle would be radically changed if it didn’t have a turret mounted cannon.
I don’t think it would be an effective troop transport vehicle.
The interior of the M113 APC is a more effective style for transporting grunts when a turret is not a factor.
If you're putting out a video that is just a computer reading a news article, you need to include a link to the article.
BB MW Thanks for the comment. It saved me time watching. I don’t watch computer voiced videos any more.
"can we afford a new IFV now...no" just like this youtube channel can neither afford to have a person to use their actual voice to read an article, nor can they even produce a professional sounding script for the computer generated voice.
Just making sure the film Pentagon wars is mentioned
Who based on movies. Are you serious? The war is different than in movies. In movies you will see one "good" us soldier killing very much enemies alone with one fucking M4a1 . In war one bullet can send you in heaven
@@anticommunist5899 it's not about an actuall war u dope. It's a movie that takes a very comedic approach to the decades long research and development of the Bradley.
Through the constant change of mission parameters for the vehicle to adding more armor, a turret, a 25mm weapon system, the fact it's initial armor was lethal to the crew creating a toxic gas that would kill the entire crew. To people in the Pentagon who would sabotage tests so that the bradly would pass with flying colors.
@@anticommunist5899 lol mate, go watch the movie. It's a comedy film based around the long and wasteful development of the Bradley
Hate the movie but like the comment.
Joe riley.
You know that your curiosity is going to
Cost 2 more seats right
:-)
I love that, so the army wanted a replacement for the Bradley and all the things they wanted are the same reason the original Bradley development was such a mess.
"We want a troop transport but we also want it to be fast, heavily armored, have tons of firepower, and be cheap to manufacture."
@Dick Izzinya that was 30 years ago and against a inferior army. Technology, strategy, and tactics have change since then. Not to mention terrorist groups like the taliban have knock out Bradley's with IEDs
But that wasn't the original purpose of the Bradley. The Bradley was designed from the ground up as an IFV to counter the soviet BMP
Thats not what the Bradley was for. It was always going to be a ifv
Flaw: Can't effectively fight tanks
What were you expecting from a APC? Its a war taxi! Want to kill tank, get Artillery, a real tank, or aircraft.
Make sense bro
The issue was that the Russians had a LOT of tanks. LOOOOOOOOOTS of tanks. Did I mention there were a ton of enemy tanks? Everything on the ground with armor needed to be able to kill tanks. In fact damn near EVERYTHING period had to be able to kill tanks and that was the problem and why the Bradly kept getting it's requirements changed. These days, enemy armor is better, their guns are better, and the requirements are drifting outside of what the Bradly is capable of. Thus the reason why the Army went shopping for something new. However the Army has already gone around this mountain before, so they're hesitant to start a new program because a fly by night congress isn't stable enough to fund such a long term project. The jackasses in Washington need to get focused on their jobs and not this political infighting. Then maybe we can get the solders something new.
@Jeff Rogers lol I know from personal experience. I got to live fire an AT4 at Ft Leonard Wood. The concussive force of the weapon was impressive. The thing nearly took my Kevlar off! I think the rule was you could fire one standing or two prone? And that was it for the day, no more AT4's for you!
But the point I was making to Tungsten was that during the 80's, the army was trying to make EVERYTHING an anti tank platform. That's why we got such a convoluted development cycle on the Bradley.
@@b.thomas8926 As it turned out, most of the Russian Equipment broke down before it could get into battle. Iraq proved Training was a big advantage also in evening out the odds.
If you look at modern history, Numbers don't win all battles, Equipment and Training win the wars.
@@pat36a Your talking about Iraq, where they were poorly supplied, poorly maintained, poorly lead, and poorly positioned. I'm talking about the Soviet Block during the early to mid 80's. Totally different animal, my man. By 1990 The soviets had 63,900 tanks, and 76,520 armored vehicles. All of NATO only had 34,000 tanks. Even with mechanical issues, there would still be 30 thousand MORE tanks on the field than what all of NATO could put out. So... yeah training shmaiming. Everyone needed to be able to kill tanks!
Did Iraq teach us something? Sure, but that's after the fact. All I can say is don't take today's knowledge and look back at the past in retrospect as use that as a justification. Try to put yourself in their shoes at the time with the information they had. If you do that, you'll be able to better understand what they were thinking and why they did what they did.
I loved my Bradley, and like others have said, It was never meant to go head to head with a tank...if anything it was used with MBT in a hunter-killer team or to move a squad in to dismount and take points. If it came across a MBT it fired its TOWs if safe to do so or it popped smoke and bugged the hell out
So ... if it was never meant to go head to head with a tank and only a battlefield taxi, why does it have a huge gun and carries only 6 troops. Portholes, really, what are you the Navy ?
It’s primary role is troop transport. To move a 6 man team into battle while giving them fire suppression from the 25mm. It was also designed to be part of a hunter killer team ie with our own MBT. They would attack the enemy MBT from the weak points ie sides or back were the armor was the weakest. While out abrams would attack from the front. But yeah I must be navy. 1-8 cav 2bct 1cd. Yup definitely navy.
@@arc2144 ROFL, I was paraphrasing the movie "Pentagon Wars". At least you're a good sport :), not easily offended.
Zamolxes77 do you know what you are even talking about? I used to drive and gun this tank. You sound ignorant. But you know that just my first hand experience talking. What do you do video games? Try to do what you do in real life.
@@rivlry1975 mix up your sock puppets?
They can't come up with a replacement for the M2 and M3 because both get the job done just fine. And neither were intended to take on MBTs except under duress. The Bradley IFV and Cavalry Vehicle were designed for use on a combined arms battlefield, with the tank killing left primarily to the Abrams, attack helicopters, and USAF A-10s. The Bradley's job is to allow the supporting infantry to keep pace with the mechanized elements, and provide fire support for the infantry it carries (the M3 variant is an armored cav scout, as opposed to an IFV). And it's done its job well, with a good combat service record. It never completely replaced the M113, but it did relegate the M113 to specialized roles.
I want to know why everyone is focusing in on just "its too weak to kill tanks" when the full statement is "its too weak to kill tanks, too big to do recon and too compact to carry troops."
its not any one problem that makes the Bradley a bad vehicle, its that it is trying to be 3 vehicles so it can't do any one specialization very well. yeah its not meant to fight tanks, so why is it packed with AT weapons, which reduce its troop capacity. its too big to do recon so why is the thing that makes it so huge (the turret) put on to give it recon capability? its too compact to carry troops, so why did they bolt a million extra little things onto it and cut its carrying capacity drastically?
its the story of what happens when the militaries runaway spending actually finishes a development hell project. this is what is happening to the F-35 they want one vehicle to do absolutely everything so it does and it sucks at it and wastes unimaginable amounts of money.
I think the issue is the army is looking for a one size fits all, everything has it's purpose
Jacob Elliott The US wants to catch up with Russia regarding ground vehicles, that’s why.
Jacob Elliott At the same time dude, you can’t have Bradleys, Strykers, and MRAPS, not enough of any of em. Using a combination of three at once is a bitch when it comes to organization and maintenance, it’s a fucking nightmare trying to keep the parts for all three machines at once
Resemblance to JSF program...
Tater Ater The DOD can keep it up and keep em heavily maintained, they just need to be more upgraded and checked regularly to make all of the ground vehicles are competent. We blast millions through the budget for a reason, we could easily do it but the Army isn’t pushing itself to the limits
@@JohnSmith-oe5rx It's not about the budget, during very bad war your supply lines get stretched, you need to cannibalize your vehicles , you can't keep enough parts close to the battle lines, it's a logistics issue its not a budget issue.
Being too weak to go up against tanks is actually a good thing. It prevents the crew from doing something stupid.
The cruise of the BMP-3 sometimes let their firepower lure them into situations their armor can't handle
might sound good but soldiers have trainings where they learn what they are capable and not capable of
That's a waste though because an LAV-25 can the job of troop transport and scouting twice as well. And if there's tanks to fight they have some with dedicated TOW turrets
Their are tons of Bradley's in war stock bases just sitting in reserve compounds
Is there any document that specifies what kind of equipment is waiting in reserve to FMS?
There probably going to be decommissioned and sold of to scrap yard I don’t really know
@@Exoticlover1629 scrap yard? When we finally get rid of this strange vehicle, in a couple years we'll be finding this in the hands of third rate African armies and Eastern European rebels and revolutionaries. Far more profitable
@@k1ng_BL0C it's not a strange vehicle. It has been used in every recent war very successfully it is the reason why we won every major ground battle in iraq. The 25 millimeter bushmaster main gun is a beast in battle on the enemy
@@Mocha69A its strange in a special way
The Army just needs to bite the bullet and make an actual APC. A vehicle that can effectively go up against tanks is called a tank.
That isn't viable anymore. The BMP changed how mechanized infantry rolled since it started to show up back in the '60s. APCs can't support infantry, IFVs CAN. Add to the fact that the 25mm autocannon is becoming useless in the support and anti-IFV role, you'll have to make a new system. The new requirement now is 30-57mm range... likely going to the 40 or 50mm autocannon for vastly increased lethality (bigger caliber, more filler) as body armor continues to increase in terms of effectiveness. That is why the US military is genuinely thinking of replacing the 5.56NATO with something in the 6-7mm range because body armor has gotten that good.
@@TheTrueAdept But what is the goal you're trying to accomplish? The purpose is to transport troops, and most IFVs do a poor job because they have to make a series of sacrifices when it comes to firepower, payload, protection and size. As it stands now the Bradley can't even transport a squad of infantry, that's why armored units don't have as many infantry, because they don't have the capacity to do so. Most IFVs can't do that either without making some serious comprises.
@@nunyabznss5866 those compromises are a necessity for direct fire support of dismounts.
@@TheTrueAdept And what sacrifices do you propose?
@@nunyabznss5866 armor protection and total passenger capacity. IFVs are a required part of any frontline unit and not having it means you're screwed as a military. Even podunk nation-states with APCs are converting some of their APC stock into IFVs if not outright buying IFVs themselves.
It's been Dominating the battlefield a long time with many upgrades
The M2 has had an EXCELLENT track record taking out tanks, in several wars!
I saw the Bradley prototype at Ft. Benning, GA in 1977. To small to carry an Infantry squad, so the answer was to reduce the size of an Infantry squad. Most were happy with the M-113 APC and many thought that the M-113 could be modified if it lacked anything.
Putting it bluntly--My son spent two tours each in Iraq and Afghanistan. The was a Cav Scout. He said that Cav Scouts were afraid to be inside one of these because if they ran over an IED all men inside would be killed. It said it was an easy target and could be easily take out. He retired as a Master SGT. He was hit by an IED after he dismounted while on patrol on Iraq. He now get 90%. He lost three of his men in one IED explosion. The other spent 18 months in Walter Reed before being taken to a VA hospital in Florida. The soldier will never recover from his injuries.
did a pretty good job against the Iraqi army with their T 72's and APC's
wow such great OPFOR
Did a shit job against insurgents and IEDs
No but the apache did
@@daveybones340 ......So what! It's not designed for that. That's what MRAPS and Strykers are for.
That was then, most pier forces have modernized and gotten better tactics, war can never be judged by the war before, it ever changing. If anything it should be compared with the war in yemen, where abrahams A1s are having trouble keeping superiority, or the syrian war, where Leopards are as well in need of upgrades
Sounds like the design brief is to make a vehicle that is as heavy and expensive as possible.
porkerthepig then the US Army should buy our Puma‘s ... heavy and expensive. 🤷🏻♂️
I was working for the US Army as Chief of Command Information for the Military District of Washington (MDW) when they first introduced the BFV . The initial flaw was they forgo to put a swim skirt on it so when it would swim a good size wave caused major problems.
I still loved my Bradley
No APC/IFV can stand up in a fight against tanks. This video is based on flawed thinking.
THE Puma can with its stabilized rockets GERMAN TECH BEST TECH
Eifeler Planespotter ..l one hit, anywhere from a tanks main gun and even the Puma is kaput.
Eifeler Planespotter ..l one hit, anywhere from a tanks main gun and even the Puma is kaput.
IFVs are expected to be able fight MBTs if necessary and had been called upon do to so in both US-Iraq Wars.
Main battle tanks are susceptible too. Hard to defend against a 500 pound bomb buried in the road. I do not think IED protection is a reasonable design requirement.
Without game changing materials technology it's going to be very difficult to have the passive armor protection for an infantry fighting vehicle. Active protection seems the way to go . However active protection systems can be overwhelmed. The Russians are going with a 57mm gun to do just that . So for the time being it's small incremental improvements , doctrine, tactics and combined arms are necessary for IFVs to survive.
Pentagon wars perfectly illustrates why it needed a replacement as soon as it was produced. Honestly the only successful multi-role combat capable troop vehicle I can think of is a Mil-24 Hind. Maybe have those guys help?
Gulf War One showed that the Bradley outclassed the T-72. TOW missiles just need to be upgraded.
Problem with that though, is those where not fully equipped t-72s, even for the tech of the day...they where as cheap as could be purchased and where a decade out of date by the time of the gulf war.
@@morteforte7033 Some were equipped with ERA but most were not but they are also up gunning the Bradley's to 30, 40 and 50mm autocannons
@@kskeel1124 true...but the Bradley's though, tended to be able to see them from further away...with missles that could equalize, that is.. when that happened..up close with those t-72s.. they had a better ability to fight.
It's not an Infantry Fighting Vehicle; it's a light tank with a troop compartment. Once you look at it from that perspective, its design is genius.
So we replace it with a Buford M8?
@@tungstenwall474 Nah, no troop compartment!
We should bring back the M8 or something like it though.
oh nm, I though the M8 had a 4 man compartment in back? maybe thinking Stingray
@@tungstenwall474 I think you're thinking of the LVT vehicles the Marines used? Also imo scout cars are somewhat obsolete due to hand-held anti-armor weapons being so prevalent as well as the fact an MRAP basically is what you're looking for, armored enough to withstand smallarms fire but too weak to really stand toe-to-toe with any enemy armor.
Mount a turret on a M113 and Bob's your uncle!
Literally just watched a video on why the BFV is top in it's class.
Silly TH-cam
Just watched a clip from the pentagon wars.
Just seen the Pentagon wars for the first time. Gives this video a whole new perspective.
The army needs to do what it should have done with the Bradley: develop 3 vehicles, preferably using one chassis, much like the Sherman of WW2. The same track system was used for the Sherman, the Priest 105mm artillery, halftrack APCs and more. The British did this quite effectively with the CVRT series of vehicles. The AIFV and M113 were also effectively developed into a number of useful variants.
If you need a light tank, an IFV, a scout vehicle and an APC, then develop a light tank, an IFV, a scout vehicle and an APC.
i like this vehicle! it fullfills its job quite well... the bradley is a perfect vehicle....
The Bradley is designed to transport its infantry on to the objective so the infantry can dismount and seize the objective. The TOW was added to defend against the hordes of Soviet armor we expected when the balloon went up. It's not designed to go head to head with tanks. It would lose.
The geniuses who run our acquisition try to make the vehicle do everything. The more stuff is added the more it weighs meaning the more cost one has in shipping. It would be better to simplify the current Bradley and have it carry less stuff.
The Germans did it right with the Marder IFV imo. Having too large a profile and turret structure isn't the geatest thing. Some people have hard-ons for the CV-90 but I still think a more practical vehicle would be to just put the Bradley back to its true form, being the M113 replacement it was meant to be.
An LAV-25 can do everything the Bradley can but better.
If a Bradley isn't meant to fight tanks then there's no point in weighing it down with so much armor and gadgets. An LAV-25 can scout and transport troops twice as far and twice as fast.
So either beef up the Bradley while still maintaining speed or just stick to tanks.
Who would have thought a IFV couldn’t go up against tanks? Anyone? Genius point to emphasize on!
The major reason why ALL new fighting systems are expensive are the same reasons why American made cars are so expensive. They are designed to maximize new equipment or altered designs so that the manufactures can patent or copyright as many new things as possible so that even if a new source of supply is used, they have to pay them a royalty. Why is this okay? Those defense contractors are where the acquisition officers work after they retire from the military. As one who worked with the supply systems, thankfully very little while I was in the USMC, but I can assure all that there is enough in the supply system, out of patent or copyright protections, to configure replacement designs.
Rest assured, whatever they come up with will be overpriced and overpromised. And not near enough input from the the grunts who have used them and will have to use them.
0:51 Well... Time to re-watch "The Pentagon Wars".
An APC is a vehicle that gets the troops to the objective, it’s not the land equivalent of a navy destroyer, it was never designed or intended to go head to head with MBTs. It’s a vehicle that can protect itself (MGs with a cannon in the 25mm to 40mm range), with armour that protects against MG up to 50 cal and artillery splinters, can carry 9 or 10 troops, with all their kit/ammo/rations. The Warrior, CV 90, PUma are all good choices.
Bradley needs an update though, a major update to increase armor protection, lethality, and move from a manned turret to an unmanned turret for greater survivability. Increased crew protection with much more investments in sensors, cameras, optics for remote controlled firing. Anti tank missiles also need to be of higher speed and increased armor penetration and range. As for countering IED, develop a V shaped hull to deflect shrapnels from perforating the under carriage.
Generals ALWAYS say they need NEW toys, even though the current ones work just fine!
And you be bitching them out if they were sitting in their arses saying 'everything is fine. Plan for future conflicts? Why would we want to do thst?
Improve our combat capability? Why?'
Cant win. Always someone gonna have a sook one way or the other.
How can they afford to replace it?
We are trillions of dollars in the hole.
20 trillion in the red and a further 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. In other words, we have NO money. None.
Federal Reserve money printer goes brrrrrrrrr
Brian Morrison Really? You’re gonna bring up that? You’re one of those people I see. Guess what buddy, EVERY COUNTRY IS IN DEBT. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT. WE ARE STILL ONE OF THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.
Maybe if they stop thinking about war and start thinking about their own population this wouldn't be a problem
No, we are not. Look around.
To think in my day we were stuck with those aluminum M113 APCs. Early models had exposed 30 Cal machine gun mounts. Protection was worthless so we rode on top.
They had upgraded the M113's over the years and are still in use today in some infantry units as command vehicles
Ok.. Just checking if the Pentagon Wars had been mentioned. Thank you guys!!
Bradley’s actually took out more tanks than M1’s did...
Prove it
Battle of Easting 2 Bradleys took out around 7 tanks but at that same time there were M1 also getting tons of kills
1) There were a lot more bradleys then there were Abrams.
2) The iraqui army was horribly outdated and in a straight firefight it's like a shooting gallery for the bradleys as they could strike the iraqui t72s from ranges they couldn't do anything about. Not a good litmus test for how the bradleys would perform against a more up to date military who would be able to fire back at the bradleys.
Before you're too critical of the Bradley, read about the battle of 73 easting.
The M2 Bradley is a beautiful vehicle, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the useless omfv. And I want it upgraded from M2A3 to M2A4 Bradley.
But have they defined the sheep specs yet? And can someone parellel park the SOB?
Even if they keep the "Bradly they need to replace the 25mm with at least a 30mm with a high explosive round and better penetration at range or go to the at least a 50mm gun better yet.
30mm would be better...or go with whats is on the a10
@@05ramadi The 30mm cannon on the A-10 is just as long or longer then the bradley plus the ammo magazine for it.
The 30mm auto cannon used on the Apache helicopter would be better as its smaller and storage for its ammo would be easy enough to figure out.
40mm: the 50mm lacks range and velocity at mid to long range, plus one needs to standardize with Allies
th-cam.com/video/04uvE3U0G_g/w-d-xo.html
everything over 30mm takes too much space. (both, weapon and ammo.)
and 30mm cannons can fight pretty much everything on the battlefield, except the front armor of an MBT.
I spent a lot of my army career on a Bradley, all I'll say is it is hard to be a scout riding on something that is taller and louder than an M1A1 Abrams tank. It was a lot easier to do recon as a scout using a HUMVEE and my feet.
Took out those tanks in Desert Storm. And punched holes through the turret of another with the 25mm. Its an IFV used for reconnaissance. It does that well. Its very capable and anyone who has seen it in action would probably agree, unless you just like to debate. Will it be outdated for combat in 20 years. Yes, probably so and thats what the pentagon does is foresee the future of our fighting vehicles and equipment. So id say everything is moving as it should. Never gonna be a perfect world.
I worked FMC as a machinist. I personally machined every one of the turrets. I stamped my initials into every one of them.
Following the news it seems like your efforts are failing at trying to replace the Bradley. Not one of the contractors has yet to come up with something even remotely close to filling the Bradley's mission.
"Its to weak to battle tanks..."
TOW has left the chat.
watch "Pentagon Wars" based on the creation of the Bradley, its a comedy
Funny how this is in my feed a day after I watched Pentagon Wars. :-)
They have been trying to find a replacement for the Bradley since I was in OSUT back in '99. They actually had several possible replacements at Knox testing them. Its actually a good vehicle and very capable of killing alot on the battle feild, but they are terrible as Scout vehicles.
The problem with replacing the M2 Bradley is that it's an extraordinarily good infantry fighting vehicle - and only ignorant civilians, complete idiots, and REMFs who don't worry about how the infantry survive or die on the battlefield don't realize that. IFVs aren't tanks and shouldn't be used that way. What an IFV is supposed to do is protect the infantry from artillery and other battlefield hazards while they're traveling and get them around the battlefield, support the tanks and kill things while the whole force is on the move, and provide solid fire support when the infantry dismount to do their job. The 6-man dismount team that each Bradley IFV carries actually works out superbly... "too small"? Horse-shit. It's a smaller target than a Stryker, better-armored, better-armed, can handle terrain that the Stryker and other competing designs can't.... I liked the Bradley a lot when I was in mech infantry, much bette than that piece of crap called the Stryker (and even the Stryker is an enormous improvement over the aluminum coffin designated the M113A2/A3 which the Bradley replaced). The M3 variant is a good scout vehicle. It definitely outclasses the BMP, which is what it was designed to do. Oh, and although it ISN'T A TANK and shouldn't be used like one... The 1st and 2nd Gulf wars both proved that the Bradley can actually outfight Soviet and Russian made tanks - Bradleys killed a lot of T72s, and we didn't lose many Bradleys in either war. The Bradley is also tougher, better armed, and more mobile on land than the current USMC AAVP-7A1 - the one thing it does that the Bradley can't do is swim. Your scepticism is misplaced.
Hundreds of thousands should be made and should bring down production costs to a few hundred thousand$, should be made with a lower profile that of a t72 and all the current mods, phib, active protection, thicker armor, larger bore mods, robotic turret, v haul, more horsepower ect. The us military is Fing crazy if they don't.
The thing is that if you actually care about infantry survivability then you wouldn't be sitting them next to all that ammo(infantry literally sits on top of the missiles and ammo is right in front of you in the floor as you sat down)/thin armor. archive.is/bU5Ys/e9cbe5160ea68f8b662eadde90ddf6fc146b5774.gif
Maybe you didn't know because you're not part of the crew...
Nor would you tack on a missile launcher that requires the crew to get out of vehicle(granted, not fully exposed) to reload...lol. (even USSR only did it once on mass
produced vehicles, as an upgrade to BMP-1) This is not only dangerous to do in typical combat scenarios, it's completely suicidal for the scenario Bradley actually was designed for(involving tactical nukes...etc., nbc protection required - you don't get that when you open that hatch...).
As a target, Bradley is one of the tallest(taller than Abrams) even before raising the tow launcher.
Israel actually do care about infantry survivability(to a point, anyway, as they lacked population; US has no shortage of people looking for free college...etc.) and they designed their *tank* to carry infantry if needed, and Namer APC based on same tank hull.
Saying Bradley is extraordinarily good is horseshit biased opinion, that's all. People using gulf war as example also have no idea what they're talking about. Your old TOW missiles still eat shit in Syria against Russian T-90. But I understand where you're coming from - you don't get to choose what you're issued. All you can do is cope with these delusions and tell yourself you're in the best vehicle ever, because how else are you going to live?
And most of the reasons you would use to consider Bradley to "outclass" BMP(without even mentioning which model) is same reason Bradley outclasses USMC counterparts - it doesn't need to swim.
Its a decent IFV, but not a good APC
Isn't the point of the missile for just in case they run into a tank, and not for them to hunt down a tank?
@@Unforseenak That would make it weigh more than a Maus.
Tons of wasted time showing the Bradley, condense this down to five minutes or less and lay it out without all the fluff.
The Bradley was designed as a troop carrier without being able to carry troops. A tank without fire power. An Armour vehicle without the Armour. A reconnaissance vehicle without the speed. To replace it, they need a person to decide what the purpose is.
Agreed. Unsuitable for reconnaissance vehicle because of its size. Maybe good for supporting infantry.
14E here. These were my home in the field
Just buy the new CV90, I joke of course like that's ever gunna happen
I know the replacement
The m2 Medium Tank
The Bob Semple tank is the pinnacle of tank designs.
Nice video with good explanation 👍Are destroying of one Bradley vehicle in 2nd gulf war 1991 in north of Kuwait one of practice reason of replacing? In addition of more progressive Russian,Chinese similar types producing?
I heard a story about one on a convoy in Iraq that got hit by 4 ieds and remained mobile, the gunner and commander and entire convoy ditched the 19 yearold driver who was knocked unconcious by the 4th ied, he awoke to nobody around and somehow made it back to fort polk with no radio or navigation as it was knocked out.
Ah yes, the scout troop carrier that cant do recon and cant transport troops, amazing.
Pentagon wars, watch it
And it needs a sign on it in fifty languages, "I am a troop carrier, not a tank. Please don't shoot at me."
I think a viewing of "The Pentagon Wars" is all anyone needs to know about the Bradley.
Moonteeth62 you do know that 90% of that film is rubbish, don’t you?
@ZeOverman Bradley has exceeded all expectations and got the most confirmed kills in the Persian Gulf War.
yeah, Rhitmetal has amazing new armour technology .. can move half a shipping container, up a 70 degree grade hill...
In the past couple of years the US Army has looked at different AFV one being the German Puma, the Swedish CV90, and the Israeli Namer, the soldiers that did the testing favored the Namer over the others, for it's speend, survivability, and ease of maintenance, plus interchangeable remote weapons stations, and a low cost.
We provide the hull and track systems in kits for the name and the mk4 .
The US should take a look at the CV90 m4, It's really good!
If movie "Pentagon wars" is even remotely true, problem is that Pentagon and generals failed to make up their mind whether to order an IFV or APC.
For taxpayer the question is whether USA orders "indestructible" or replaceable consept. First has sky high costs but latter produces some bodybags because its power is in numbers not quality. Also latter is more easily sold abroad.
pexxa johannes a victim of mission requirement creep, I’d say. The movie is a dramatization of the whole design and procurement process of the Bradley, some parts are exaggerated for comedic efffect, some parts are fictional, but it is mostly the way it went down.
Just replace the TOW missiles with Javelins and that will solve some of your tank killing issues. The main problem we had with the Bradley is the profile and trying to hide that in IV lines.
Like every weapon system, you have a list of compromises that you have to make and need to identify which ones you're making before development:
Do you want a scout? Make it small (no mounted infantry) and fast, like the British FV101 Scorpion, and give up the ability to carry soldiers. Amphibious capability is possible since armor is minimal.
Want an APC? Then give up most of the heavy armament and limit the design to a main gun and machine gun (Marder IFV). Want a protected APC? Modify a tank (Namer APC).
Want a tank killer? Then decide on either missiles (like the FV438 swingfire) or main gun (Panhard ERC, B1 Centauro) and a 3-man crew, and give up on carrying infantry.
Want to engage infantry? You'll want a large-bore projectile with a large HE charge, probably in the 30mm-100mm range (BMP-1, BMP-3, BMD-4).
From what I've read, amphibious capability is almost useless because armor additions and supplies weigh down the vehicle beyond its buoyancy limit. Armored vehicles in the water move very slowly and are highly vulnerable, and need to find appropriate points to get into and out of the water, which not all rivers have. Modern amphibious vehicles almost always use aluminum armor, which sacrifices a lot of protection in comparison to steel. I haven't heard of firing ports ever being useful, but they compromise both the armor protection and amphibious capabilities.
The Bradley is designed to give support to the infantry! It has TOW anti-tank to deal with tanks, if it ran into them. It wasn't designed to hunt them. Against a first line force fielding T-90 type tanks BMP3s, BMP2s, and helicopter gunships the Bradley would be in trouble on its own. But it's not designed to operate on its own in that environment.
The cv90 or the lynx is the best to replace it.
both those designs are already pretty much obsolete nice try though...
Kevin Skeel the CV90 is obselete? It literally just got a new atgm thats extremly good. It has a 40mm... not a 25
Main flaw is a flat floor. "V" hull so that it doesn't just can the spam.
Love gunning the M3A2.
cv90 forever
Why? - because arms manufacturers wants more money, simple 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
How about IFV and APC version?
Maybe the problem is how we consider how it’s used. Alone. Perhaps it should be part of a mix of forces laying a “mosaic” layering of super protected troop carriers with medium tanks or some kind of well thought out brute force vehicles to support and protect them. Just saying, I’m not a tactical expert or anything just kinda wondering what if...
Because they Military Industrial complex needs to fleece the tax payers out of another 50 billion to design a box with a gun on top.
What BS. It’s just another way of extracting money from the long suffering US taxpayer🙄
Hey can I weigh in? My MOS was an 11Hotel E-9, in the 1st Infantry Division, I was a Spec4. Yes I was a TOW gunner, operating an M901 Improved TOW Vehicle. We carried a ground mount TOW in addition to operating the M901, the vehicle having a "hammer shaped" turret, with two launch rails. The M901 was a modified M113A1, a slow, heavy, outdated vehicle. These 113 APC hulls were Vietnam era stock, way under-maintained for the role demanded of them, at least in our unit. I was in from 1984-88, a peace time military, and our 1st ID forward was a European centric, stop the WARSAW pact flood of potential tank armor, coming from East Germany mission. The M2/M3 Bradley is the successor vehicle from the M113/M901 family. During the mid to late 80's , the Bradley was starting to appear in some front line units. Everything I've read about the Bradley, seen and talked with people who worked on it, indicates that it is a superior vehicle to the 113 family. It's a true IFV, unlike the M113 family, which is just a battlefield taxi. The various modifications of the Bradley, give it better protection, but that's a matter of degree. It's not meant to be a MBT.
You made E-9 in 4 years? That’s impressive.
Specify and buy a veichle based on the CV90
Honestly the Bradley was pretty good, while only being able to carry 6 instead of 9 men, the switch to TOW missiles made it so much more effective then if it had 3 more troops. The Bushmaster is great for the troop support role, killing machine gun teams thru walls. Sure it won’t be able to take a hit from a T-72, but by the time it gets spotted, it either disembarks a anti-tank team, fires tows, smokes, ore just retreats with its speed.
While I agree that it’s too big to be a good scout and too compact to be a troop carrier, It was never intended to go against tanks. I do agree it needs to be up-gunned however. The ifvs it’s actually designed to fight against are becoming more and more armored.
It's not only the cost of a new heavy IFV but the extra cost in buying more heavy lifty aircraft and ships to transport them around the world.
The M2 Bradley is a beautiful vehicle, it must never be unnecessarily replaced by another omfv vehicle. I want the Bradley IFV to remain operational for many more decades.
gianpaolo villani If we don’t stop it, we should modernize it.
@@JohnSmith-oe5rx Better to modernize it than to replace it unnecessarily with a new too defective prototype.
Choosing a Puma IFV license contract in exchange for F/A-18 Superhornets could be a fail deal. Greatings from Berlin!
The Bradley was supposed to be simple troop carrier, but as you saw in Pentagon Wars they wanted to put everything and have it do everything. It ended up being a APC and a light tank. It's still effective and it's not going anywhere for a while just like the Abrams.
The M2 was designed to be an IFV, not a troop carrier. Wouldn't use the Pentagon Wars as legitimate source for info on the production of the vehicle. The author of the book and what the movie is based on has some pretty glaring mistakes, had little understanding of military testing and design, and held some questionable motives and beliefs regarding military technology
Pentagon wars is literally a comedy based on a fictional story
Helped make stamped aluminum wheels and steel torsion bars for this iin early 80's .
Hmmm, the great equalizer A10 jet.😎
Any time you get those num-nuts in congress involved in military material specifications you know its going to get screwed up. The Bradely has performed well for it's designated purpose. Yes it's too tall but the original design had it at a low silhouette which was fine. The M113 it replaced was tall as well. .
This vehicle would make A LOT of sense in an asymmetric war like the one in Colombia.
"To big to be a scout", well all the IFVs ive seen are fucking HUGE to. Griffin, CV90, alot of those are goddamn enormous.
Its roll is to support infantry as a mobile gun system and boy is it good at it. A new gun would do wonders for it tho
the Bradley had mobility and firepower, it can't have armor, if it does, then it's an MBT. The holy-trinity of vehicular warfare is never wrong.
It’s a troop carrier that can’t carry many troops, a scouting vehicle that’s too slow and has too high a profile to do effective scouting, and a tank that doesn’t ahem enough armoires to be an effective tank
It’s the perfect example of trying to do too many things and doing them all poorly rather than focusing on doing one or two things really well
Frickin pentagon wars is a comedy, comedy! You aren't supposed to take it seriously.
The Bradley is an IFV, it's job is to transport a smaller amount of trops AND provide fire support against softer targets, for that it needs higher survivability and more armament...
"It's too weak to take down a tank" wait, isn't that what it has TOW missiles for?
I’m confused...the video at 5:00 says the new APC would cost almost $1 million dollars each. Twice that of the Bradley. So it only cost approximately $500,000 to build a Bradley?????
No... inaccurate information video....alot of inaccurate information is given through videos like this....when the actual truth is told by those who are the original sources of Intel they are dismissed as just random stories and people usually go with action movies like this one.
1.5 mil in 86 as was told to me by leadership. Of course that's the supplemental stuff as well, radios and tools etc