Army Mech Infantry Live Fire Exercise Part 1

[Robbieifyoucan]

uhhh american enginerring best in the world dont be jealous :P

[Ialocin85]

@Robbieifyoucan

lol, funniest shit i have herd in a long time

[mj2w1]

@Robbieifyoucan This isn't American engineering. The Bradley vehicle is designed and produced by BAE Systems, which is a British defence organisation.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

You want to check that again?

Bradley was designed and built by United Defense, an American Company, that was LATER bought by BAE.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 The original Bradley model was, but the modern variants and types using Chobham armour are all developed by BAE Systems. It's been changed a lot since it's original design prior to BAE Systems bought it out.

BAE Systems are rolling out 11 different role Bradley vehicles, which are all designed by them.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

Bradley has no Chobham, and no most bradley variants are made before United Defense was acquired.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 The majority of the variants where developed after BAE Systems bought them out. All developments on the BFV after 2005 are BAE concepts.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

Are you saying most of the variants of the bradley appeared post-2005?

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 No, but the majoirty of Bradleys in service are post-2005 roll out, to which they have been vastly changed by BAE Systems. The interior has been improved since UDI produced them. The variant batches BAE produced are extremely different to those manufactured by UDI.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

There has been no new major variants that are coming out post-2005.

Including the M2A3, which came out earlier

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 But the batches are not the same, every time a new batch of vehicles are rolled out there is changed and improvements from previous models. The BFVS was changed post-2005 by BAE Systems, it may not be called anything different, but they are different.

Same with naval ships, when they plan to build 50 or however many ships, the first will not be the same as the last. They improve, and that's precisely what BAE Systems did, and on a large scale.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

Ships, if differ enough will have different "flights".

Same as the Bradleys. If the model number, i.e. A3, is the same, then there simply isn't a lot of difference.

You lost the argument pal, give it up.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 lol have you been in the military?

They may have the same model number, but that doesn't dictate the interior or material components of the vehicle. Mk1 Jackal had about 3 different layouts, but still retained the Mk1 - same with the the Wimiks.

There can be a lot of difference, that's why military suppliers and contractors have analysts who go out in theatre and get feedback on vehicles. They are improving new batches.

Also, this isn't really an argument, more of a discussion.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

Layouts are one thing, but there must be a significant difference in order to mark a different variant.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 Variants usually marked by capabilities of deployable force, which may mean a new weapon system. It's possible to expand upon the vehicle's core components without directly changing the effects of it's capabilities. Which is precisely my point, it may not officially be a variant, but by a literal definition, it is one.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1 So, you are claiming, the brits modified or added some new components, therefore it is a british engineering.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 My original comment was stating that nearly all Bradleys used nowadays are BAE Systems developments. Original UDI BFVS are nearly all gone. Yes it's British engineering, made by a British organisation in a very different way to UDI.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

Great, I'm gonna take a japanese digital clock, stick it to a Mustang, and I'm gonna call it Japanese engineering.

P.S. Those developing the new Bradleys are BAE land Systems, which is more of an American subsidiary of the BAE, ran by americans, using american technology.

P.S. There are things the BAE land systems know that is classified that not even the Brits know.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 BAE Systems Land & Armaments is fully subsided (that's 100% as it's a private subsidence) by BAE Systems, it's just a trading name. There isno American subsidence. The nationality of the employees has nothing to do with it.

Your final point is incorrect, to gain secret clearance to work on classified projects it's required the minimal amount of people know. BAE Systems are working on projects in the UK for the U.S. DoD unknown to anyone else. It's not company based.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 You seem to have a vast misunderstanding of the concept and the point I was originally making, subsequently, you've blown this out of proportion. You also clearly know very little about business and military contractors.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

You have blown it out of proportion.

A. BAE Land systems is composed of Americans, and the technology utilized is independent of the main BAE.

B. I never said BAE land systems knows everything about BAE, but the entire operations is done inside America, by Americans, with almost no clearance given to the main organization.

C. You have yet to demonstrate how 5 years of taking over a company suddenly changes a 30 year old product's nationality.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 A. The nationality of the employees doesn't represent the company, it's not independant, it's a trading name of BAE Systems with it's own board of directors.

B. Completely incorrect, that's not how private contractors work, a lot of U.S. military hardware is made in the UK and other European sites of BAE. It makes no difference.

C. My original point was that BAE now makes the BFVS and the majority of the BFVS in service are made by BAE.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

I'll tackle your last/original point.

Most of the Bradleys in service were produced pre-2005

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 Solid facts or evidence? The majority of mechanised U.S. units training and operating the BFVS are BAE Systems developed post-2005.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

Fact 1:

total of ~6720 Bradleys were fielded since 1981

Fact 2:

total of 6724 Bradleys were produced by 1994.

Connect the dots.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 How many batches of those are still using UDI material components? None

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

All of them, from the chasis, to engine, to weapons.

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 LMAO, have you ever served in the military? Engines and weapons get refitted on vehicles very frequently. What is left over from UDI is a metal box, the engines and weapon pool which is being rotated on the BFVS are made by BAE Systems.

If you think the same weapon stays on a vehicle for 18 years, you are deluded.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

So tell me which weapons in the Bradley are developed by BAE, and which engine?

[mj2w1]

@cr9527 All Bradley A3 FoV batches use BAE Systems engines (which are the 600h/p+ types upgraded when BAE took over). All weapon systems using the BAE MEP integration where developed by BAE Systems, some where outsourced but they stand outside of the MEP system, meaning they become obsolete; which is why BAE systems continues to develop newer weapons, to complement the FCS platform; which is something which didn't exist when UDI were rolling them out.

[cr9527]

@mj2w1

So majority of Bradleys don't use Cummins engine?

Don't use the Bushmaster chaingun?

Cmon man, admit that at most, the BAE polished the bradley's guts, but no more.

[TheIrishryan]

lets not waste our time arguing about tracked fighting vehicles, they have already proved their worth on the battle field. If anything, we need to focus out attention on the abortion that is the STRYKER. Its under gunned and dosen't have enough armor yet for some reason the army thinks its good enough to outfit entire brigades with the piece of crap.

[Ialocin85]

Look up the 'CV9040 demonstration' and see what a APC is all about. This shitbox wont last long against Swedish 40mm Bofors power

[bigredbosshog]

@Ialocin85 Dummy! The enemy of NATO does not have these! We do! DuH! Quit making up implausable scenarios.......

[zach312582]

As far as the russians go, what equip do you think iraq fought with. the russian tanks have poor vision and cant hit crap everytime. the brad nows booasts the upgraded hull, titanium roof, steel skirts, spaced laminate plates, and reactive armor on top of all that and the turret is angled to deflect rounds. and bradleys are equipped with missile jammers so goodbye your top attack ATGM. nothing touchs the armor of the US. T-72 are crap, T-90 expensive crap. nough said

[zach312582]

ok alright since nobody here has a clue, one the m791 old tungsten ap round killed t-55 and t-72 in DESERT STORM. the brad had more armored kills than the abrams over the same.  the 25mm now shoots a m919 tungsten penetrator DU dart that goes through ANYTHING. and it shoots 200 a minute with a max range NOTHING can touch (10.5 miles). the a3 brad has upgraded armor that a 30mm ap cant penetrate. simply said, the only thing that touches m1 + m2 are efp's.

[tep1320]

They are a double sided sword. Yeah, they carry good armor and dismounts of to 7 or 8 but you can't go without it. Back in 96' in Stewart I remember knocking out a 922 score during table 7. Bad Ass~!

[luckyhat4]

The first thing I thought when I saw the Bradley was, shit that thing is way too fucking tall. It's the same mistake they had with the Sherman. Plus, the armor's aluminum, isn't it?

Given how imbalanced offense v defense is in modern warfare, it probably isn't that important anyway, though. You can take out an Abrams with one hit. A Bradley isn't going to get any better survivability.

[WWIIIthenovel]

You can't freaking take out an Abrams in one hit. Do you know how tough depleted uranium is. Yeah maybe the depleted uranium shelled bullet can take out any tank in one hit but a 125 mm gun, which is 5 mm more than the abrams, only leaves a dent in the armor. And by the way the sherman was to quick for german or italian tanks to hit. so is the bradley.

[luckyhat4]

i think you can take out an abrams in one hit if you have proper training/weapons. didn't shermans get outclassed by german tanks? they had numerical advantage and little else. i do know how tuff dep uranium is. it keeps sharpening itself and continues penetrating into armor, eventually aerosoling the entire round. 0_0. soviets use the 125 mm HESH, not as good as our 120 mm APFSDS uranium round.

[WWIIIthenovel]

Oh, I see what you mean. Well yeah you can, any tank can be extremely weak if it's in a bad spot. I bet a T-72 can take out an abrams if it had the tactical advantage. But your right about the sherman. The things a piece of shit compared to the king tiger. the only weakness to the king tiger was it was too slow and could be put out of mobility by just shooting the tracks off. Most american tanks are fast. the m1a2 is because it has rubber treads. I just don't like people to say the m1a2 is crap.

[luckyhat4]

i like the m1a2, personally. it's a good armor-firepower-mobility mix, unlike the superarmored Merkava, powerful T-series, or insanely fast Leclerc tanks (French). I think a marine m1a2 managed to survive after nearly being flipped over by a 500-pound bomb in the middle of a firefight. it popped thermal smoke when it righted itself. then it kept shooting.

the m1a2 is a good tank.

[poofdude]

actually u cant take out a abrams in one hit, they tested it and it didn't penetrate its armor.

[luckyhat4]

u can't with a standard soviet round.

AFPSDS punches right thru chobham armor. which is fine because no one outside NATO seems to be using it.

russians use HESH rounds.

[poofdude]

u think we test it with our own weapons? then what would be the point of it? lol

[luckyhat4]

well, weapons get lost and tech gets reverse-engineered. we do test it with our own weapons. it's safer to make sure of everything.

it doesn't really matter tho because any top-attack MILAN-type weapon basically rapes Abrams. Guess what kind of weapon terrorists can get their hands on easiest? A tank cannon or a rocket launcher?

[ChaseSpeer]

...some of the panzers were much faster then the sherman. And the italian tanks? You mean their covered wagons with a throwing gernades?

[cbrusharmy]

Aluminum magnesium alloy + they'll weld an extra inch of under-belly armor on it and put a couple tons of reactive armor all around the brad when it gets in theater. Nothing guarantees survivability, but it does matter.

[BFVBC]

The Bradley is a beast thats for sure. If you have a good crew and a vehicle that works well with no Maintenance issues, then you can put a lot of firepower down range quick.

BFV BC

[yorpn]

I love this video. It's music to my ears ;D

[solo125]

despite all the crap that mechanized infantrymen get, the 25 mike-mike and co-ax are wonderful sounds during a fire fight.

[SupportTheWar]

yay bradleys =D

[zer0nix]

total pwnage. it's the promise of playing with big toys like this that makes me want to join the military. seriously.