The Russia is getting more evil thread

[Mark_Weston]

@vyshka

I don’t know I’d consider it a tragedy.

I thought I could get away without the sarcasm tag on this one.

[Dejin]

@triggercut

What changed with the Bradley? I can remember long ago reading an article about the Bradley being a deathtrap for the soldiers inside, it just seemed like a monumental engineering/execution error.

It seems like every US weapons program is considered a disaster right up until it isn’t. See for example V-22 Osprey (which clearly had very serious and deadly development problems), F-35 (now cheaper per airplane then some 4th/4.5 generation fighters), F-16 (originally nicknamed the Lawn Dart for killing pilots), Stryker (which did very well in Iraq, but was considered useless before it got there). I’m sure there are more examples — let’s hope we can put the Ford-class carriers on the list of “development issues, but now good” projects at some point (it sure seems to be having some major teething issues)

[vyshka]

Sorry :) I should’ve figured that out

[Strollen]

@ddtibbs

I find that extremely hard to believe. In my unit, the M1s were killing Republican Guard tanks in droves. Bradleys had to stop to fire their TOWs and keep tracking until the missile hit. There is no way that could be true.

I figured that would be because there were more Bradley than Abrams deployed. That turns out not to be the case with over 3,000 Abrams vs 2,200 Bradley in the theater. Although the number deployed in combat was roughly comparable.

I couldn’t find a source saying which system killed more tanks. The big advantage of Bradley was range, Abrams are gas hogs and constantly needed to be refueled. It seems to me the scary thing about Bradley is that need to be stationary while the TOW missile is outbound.

I’d rather being in M1A1 than Bradley, but either is such a huge upgrade from the 1960s era M113 we have been giving to Ukraine, that either weapon will be valuable.

This GAO assessment done right after the first gulf war is pretty interesting.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-92-94.pdf

[Dejin]

@Strollen

This GAO assessment done right after the first gulf war is pretty interesting.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-92-94.pdf

I thought this was pretty interesting and potentially relevant to Ukraine. Barely having enough supply for 100-hours of combat is not good, although not sure if that was due to no supplies on hand (in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait) or no supplies overall (including in the US).

Bradley and Abrams crews reported problems obtaining repair parts, and many had exhausted their limited supply of some parts by the end of the 100-hour ground war. Because of these problems, according to some Army logistics personnel, sustainability could have become a major problem had the war lasted longer.

Also friendly fire 7 of the 9 M1 Abrams destroyed were due to friendly fire. 20 of 28 Bradleys destroyed were due to friendly fire. Either that speaks horribly of US crews ability to distinguish friendly from enemy units or the complete inability of Iraqis to do any damage at all to US vehicles. Hopefully Blue Force Trackers takes care of friendly fire now? Anyone know what happens to Blue Force Tracking if the GPS satellites go down or are jammed?

[pyrhic]

@Dejin

Also friendly fire 7 of the 9 M1 Abrams destroyed were due to friendly fire. 28 of 28 Bradleys destroyed were due to friendly fire.

I’m still reading through it, but does it mention the source of the FF? Given the speed of the advance, I wouldn’t be surprised if a bunch of this was from artillery or air…

[Dejin]

I copied that wrong. Should be 20 of 28 Bradleys (I’ll correct the original). The Abrams number is correct. I didn’t see any specific mention of cause, but it is specifically cited that crews could shoot further than they could properly identify what they were shooting at, this at least somewhat suggests that the main concern was not artillery or air friendly fire but tanks. There’s a quote “Some Bradley crews we spoke with said they feared friendly fire from Abrams tanks more than they feared the enemy.”

It does say 10 of 28 friendly fire incidents were Tanks shooting at friendly vehicles, but doesn’t mention if that means the other 18 were air, artillery, infantry, or non-tank AFVs.

From Page 33.

both the Bradley and the Abrams were able to see and hit targets at greater ranges than they were able to positively identify targets. Although Bradley and Abrams gunners were able to see potential targets out to 4,000 meters or more, the images were no more than thermal “hotspots.” Crews were generally unable to distinguish between friendly and enemy vehicles beyond 1,500 to 2,000 meters under clear conditions and as close as 500 to 600 meters or less during rainy con- ditions. However, the vehicles’main weapons could hit enemy targets well beyond this range: the Bradley’s TOW missile at 3,750 meters, the Abrams’ 120-mm gun at 3,000 meters or more, and the 25-mm gun on the Bradley at 2,500 meters.

The Bradley’s and Abrams’ inability to identify targets as far out as they could hit targets limited Bradley and Abrams combat effectiveness. Crews we spoke with reported having to hold fire while waiting for target conlir- mation from others. An Armor Center report noted that the Abrams’ ability to engage the enemy was not optimized because the system’s main gun range was greater than the vehicle’s ability to identify targets.

They also complain about the lack of navigation systems. At the time they had 1-2 per company. It looks like a pretty clear line from this report to the capabilities of Blue Force Tracker. So good job whoever was responsible for that. I just hope the system has good reliability and backup capabilities against near-parity militaries who can jam/shoot down satellites and jam electronics.

[vyshka]

The one thing I remember from back then about the Bradleys is that the Bushmaster impressed with the 25mm DU sabot rounds killing some T-55s and damaging T-72s.

[schurem]

@abrandt

I’m showing restraint.

Go on, let it all out. Show us on the dollie where the bad man touched you.

[abrandt]

It was right here in my supply and logistics bits.

[strummer]

@Mark_Weston

The Bradley was the F-35 of its day. An expensive project with initial teething troubles (and budget troubles) that attracted a lot of hostile press (possibly because some Pentagon insiders were briefing against it?). Then they built a few thousand of them and they turned out to be effective and reliable. Still expensive, but that’s the American way.

Did they end up adding the port holes so the fellas could stick their guns out and shoot people?

Pentagon Wars - Bradley Fighting Vehicle Vision

[Woolen_Horde]

@strummer

Did they end up adding the port holes so the fellas could stick their guns out and shoot people?

The original model had the side firing ports, but they did away with them in subsequent models. Simply put, it was far more useful to put more armor on the sides. You also can’t use your regular infantry rifle because it’s too cramped in there, so they had to develop a shorter variant just for the firing ports.

M231 Firing Port Weapon

[abrandt]

Having worked in an environment where ultimately every product design decision came down to basically “just blindly implement the customer’s request” this clip was always my favorite thing to point to as an example of why that wasn’t a great idea(not that it mattered). Also, it always made me feel better to know that me and Richard Schiff shared that same awful headache.

[Menzo]

@abrandt

Also, it always made me feel better to know that me and Richard Schiff shared that same awful headache.

Lol I guess the headaches are the same whether you’re building armored vehicles or writing press releases, because I’ve been in basically the same meetings!

[Mark_Weston]

Rob Lee

I like this video mainly because of the office chair. This national guard trooper can keep watch in relative comfort, and only needs to stand up when it’s time to shoot down a cruise missile.

[Soapyfrog]

That’s a terrible video. What did they shoot at? Why are they cheering? We’ll never know.

[TheWombat]

@Strollen

We sent them thousands of boatloads of stuff.

Well, yes, but my point is simply that the humble truck was one of the most important by far.

As for the Bradley, other posters have covered most of it. I also think though that some of the criticism came from people not quite understanding the role of the vehicle, though to be fair the Army oversold things often enough. Because the Bradley carried ATGMs, and its chaingun could in some cases penetrate the armor on some MBTs, people looked at it as if its primary role was to kill tanks. Of course that was not it’s primary role, and it didn’t really work well as a dedicated tank destroyer thingy, naturally enough.

Sort of like the Chieftain commander I chatted with in Berlin a long time ago. Pointing at the French armored car with the 105mm high-velocity cannon, he noted that if you have a weapon that can kill a tank, some wanker was inevitably going to think you should go out and kill tanks as a matter of course. Which is why he preferred his slow but well-armored behemoth.

[vyshka]

Yeah, the purpose of the Bradley was to be a more survivable, and useful, infantry taxi.

Anyone know how long after Desert Storm it took to improve the optics/targeting for M1s so they could better identify targets at the edge of their engagement range? I’m guessing it mostly wasn’t a priority at first because any armor heading west towards you in Europe was very likely the Soviets.

[TheWombat]

@vyshka

Yeah, the purpose of the Bradley was to be a more survivable, and useful, infantry taxi.

Which is very un-sexy, especially when going to Congress for money. The Army desperately needed a M113 replacement, for obvious reasons (though the Vietnam-era M113 1/32nd scale model I made once was really cool, even had the engine you could see!). Going to the Armed Services Committee and saying, hey, we need a better vehicle to schlep troops around a battlefield might not even wake anyone up from their naps. Trotting out a CHAINGUN-TOTING, MISSILE-FIRING, TANK-KILLING FIGHTING MACHINE though, now that’ll get attention.

[Janster]

No, the problem was that they tried to make the Bradley RPG-7 Proof, which turned out to be night-on impossible…
Bradly became an amazing vehicle nonetheless.
Laserpig has a show on it which is quite entertaining…

Perun has one on ammo and stuff, things we touched in on earlier.

I guess some of you should go see what he puts Russian ammo count at.