The Pentagon Wars - A product management lesson

[isaiahbutler]

I can't believe the U.S. government would be this stupid. Oh wait yes I can! Which makes this one of the most depressing movies of all time.

[Allabaster84]

@isaiahbutler Well, the issue is that its not even the government itself. Its the leadership WITHIN the military, who are the ones who are allegedly advising the beancounters in the government about what the money should go to. That's the really sad part.  These guys should KNOW better.

[nuggztheninja]

"Now if you have to design hats to hold that GD missiles...just do it!"

[2IDSGT]

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.

[akilla214u2c]

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.

[meanmanturbo]

They should make a remake of this about the F-35

[eric21881]

"sir,it is a troop carrier"

"so, make a couple extra trips, whats the difference?"

this is hilarious

[s2player]

That's the guy from The Lost World Jurassic Park!

[bsgtrekfan88]

@s2player and The West Wing - Richard Chiff! :)

[xXComrade24Xx]

lol wow xD

[Bytheemperor]

Oh come on dudes... the bradley (or any other vehicle) it's ok when fighting an third world country enemy, with no real capabilities. Try to send them to fight a war against china or russia and it will prove to be as useless as chopping a tree with a butter knife.

[kraigthorne]

They forgot to add that the Bradley is by far the best AFV in the world. Also in the Gulf War it took out more Iraqi tanks in 100 hours than the US Air Force did in a month!

[Thunder71780]

@kraigthorne Um no check your facts son

[kraigthorne]

@Thunder71780 Fact: In the Gulf War the number of smart bombs used was less than 1 in 20 and it is near impossible to kill a tank with a dumb bomb. If you know what the 1st ID and 2nd ACR did in the Gulf War you would not have questioned me. ;)

[lastdingo]

@kraigthorne

Extremely open terrain, ill-trained and demotivated enemies, many "destroyed" tanks weren't even manned, marginal night combat equipment of the enemy ... that was a mopping-up action and not a real test.

It's like saying that the Matilda2 was invincible...

[kraigthorne]

@lastdingo It looks like you have NO idea about what happend in the 1991 Gulf War. In 1991 the army of Iraq had seen more combat than any other Army on earth (except Iran who they just ended a near 10 year war with). The Iraqi Army also was bigger than the American Army and they often faught to the death.

[locomm19]

talkin shit about my bradley ...fockers

[cmealy2011]

WOW!! The thought of guys like that running America's Armed Forces. Absolutely frightening

[bunny153649]

Next upgrade: wings on the side with 2 jet engines to make it a flying tank.

[Gh0st251]

Good idea fairy?

[turgeonj228]

the one person who disliked this was either the CAD designer or the Lt. Col...

[Coolins335]

they actually used those anti-tank missiles during the battle of 73 easting.

[stareagle11]

@Coolins335 aye 2 bradleys destroyed 5 enemy tanks there.

[Yayo015]

EPIC WIN !

[amishmike1]

The Stryker is a half baked abortion but the Brad is a fucking beast that kills the enemy and eats their babies!

[AnteyPL]

@amishmike1

Especially when it even can't make on it's own to starting point of trail run (case for Norway) - after incorporating all enhancements, it is NOT BAD IFV, but certainly, not the best around (see CV-90 Mk.III, K21, Puma).

[Armyofmany]

@AnteyPL

Puma? Don't you mean Warthog? That's hardly a IFV...

[plakey2001]

this is my workplace today

[biped19]

This also must have been how the F-18E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O. . .was developed.

[BigMobe]

I wonder if the same thing happened to the LAV-25.

[biped19]

@BigMobe

Is that the "striker" turd.

[TheRazorbackpilot]

@BigMobe Probably not since it was based off the Swiss Piranha.

[AnteyPL]

@BigMobe

No, but entire FCS vehicle segment is likely candidate... 

[devaary]

Oh my life at the office!

[moristheman]

Abso-f*cking-lutlely true  same in the german army^^

[HonestMan395]

This is terrific. I'd never heard of it before now.

It really gives new meaning to the cliche:

" Military Intelligence is a contradiction in terms."

Where can I get the full film?

[reallivebarbiedoll]

Would you please upload the entire film? I really love this movie, but I don't have the DVD. Thanks!

[Jimmito2]

Can u upload the entire film please?? One of my favorites

[captain1morgan]

Great video! It's all too true that this is exactly how great product ideas undergo changes that result in a product that nobody recognizes (and nobody will buy).

Dr Jim Anderson

BlueElephantConsulting com

[762rk95tp]

...to original specification. US military isn't only army in world fielding equipment that is faulty or dangerous and doesn't really serve it's purpose.

[adrianwainer]

@762rk95tp Just because other folks can screw up, does not make it okay for the US military to screw up.

[762rk95tp]

Okay, where to start with. Pentagon Wars is brilliant parody IMHO. It is just is exaggerated a bit, just as parodies normally do. APC packing little punch was first wanted during WWII, port holes for passengers have been with APC's from day one. There is lot of stream lined facts in movie when it comes to details. Basic principle of military making black white when it comes to checks and balances stand. Even if project is complete failure, they on and on. Until it works, in a way that is close.

[adrianwainer]

@762rk95tp If you want a little punch, one can provide that with a modularized external weapons station with a 7.62 mm or 12.7 mm gun or a Grenade launcher. A 5.56 mm weapon as carried by infantry will not penetrate even lightly armored vehicles or a sturdy brick wall, so it is pretty pointless having infantry firing out of the vehicle. Checks & balances failed in the Bradley, since the objective should be to produce a vehicle well suited to role at lowest cost.

[762rk95tp]

@adrianwainer

Modern remote weapons stations didn't exist back in early seventies, back then it was either turret or unstabilized pintle mount. As whole concept of modular systems isn't exactly totally new approach, but extent to witch it has reached lately is new thing. Pretty much every new weapon or vehicle is modular in one way or another. Biggest reason for this is cost, in post cold war budget environment military cannot afford specialized vehicles that often as they used to.

[762rk95tp]

@762rk95tp

...When it comes to firing ports, that is where everything vent wrong with Bradley. Concept itself have proven rather bad in practice, most new APC's and IFV's don't have firing ports as those would weaken protection and accuracy when firing from such port is usually either bad or horrible. Infantry weapons don't usually do anything for any hard target, 7.62mm AP round has enough penetration power to damage some lightly armored vehicles. Reasons why M231 is idiotic are simple.

[762rk95tp]

@762rk95tp

...First it isn't infantry weapon, but specialized weapon meant only for use in Bradley. Location of firing ports isn't very good, for example some Russian APC's and IFV's have firing ports in front arc and those can be used with all squad weapons. That includes GPMG's and LMG's. That is actually useful location for those ports and increases firepower of vehicle a lot.

Part of reason why Bradley ended up as it did was constant changing of specification for vehicle.

[762rk95tp]

@762rk95tp

...It isn't always just soldiers messing up development of military hardware. Politicians too have tendency to mess up stuff, especially when it comes to sub-contracts in defense industry.

In US that means splitting between states based on political influence. In Europe I personally have seen such fouled up logistics chains due to multinational procurement and local license manufacture and assembly.

When French are involved in a project it can become far more complicated it needs.

[762rk95tp]

@762rk95tp

... to be. Helicopter engine might be assembled in country A, then it's transported to country B, where gearbox is attached to it. Then the damned power plant/gearbox combination is transported back country A. At some point French interdict the process, due to improper box that is used in transporting it. Fault of box was apparently wrong color, later on French delivered proper transportation container for power plant, difference to previously used box was blue paint.

[762rk95tp]

@762rk95tp

Then all of already delivered engines are disassembled and reassembled. After that rinse and repeat of previous logistics circus followed. That happened about five years ago, then procurement of our glorious NH-90 Tactical Transport Helicopter was just about two years behind schedule. It still isn't fully operationally capable aircraft and potentially tactically useless as politicians saw purchase of accompanying attack helicopters not politically correct enough.

[762rk95tp]

@762rk95tp

And too expensive. Army tried to call em "escort helicopters" as that would been bit less offensive, but in the end we replaced 8 obsolete helicopters with 24 most advanced ones possible and due to lack proper escorts usefulness in hostile environment is quite limited.  Two door MG's per bird just isn't necessarily enough to ensure that large enough part of air mobile battalion reaches landing zone.

[AnteyPL]

@762rk95tp

Nope :) NH-90 is far more beyond schedule - there was running joke how to make Eurocopter CEO run mad ? Ask what '90' in chopper's name means ! :OD

[HonestMan395]

@762rk95tp Quote:

"Politicians too have tendency to mess up stuff,"

I think you underestimate politicians. I'm certain messing up is part of the job description. They do it so well and so consistantly.

I've always thought that a being politician is the only executive level job where no qualifications are required other than the ability to speak and seeing George W. bush, even that doesn't appear to be mandatory.

[BigMobe]

This thing works great to kill infantry in BF2, but is sucks ass to be in one if it hit with tank shells, AT rockets, or anything from aircraft including gun fire.

[plainlake]

Seems to me they wanted to build a BMP.

[JerryBear712]

"I'm a troop carrier, not a tank, please don't shoot me."

In Chinese: 我是運兵車, 不是坦克, 別開火!

[Breakerchase]

Funny to see that the three generals get promoted to major general in that ten year timeframe

[revolrz22]

Some of these jokes are just a little stupid. The whole thing about "It looks like a tank, the enemy will throw what they've got at it!" in particular. Troop transport, tank, whatever - if the enemy sees it as a target they will do what they can to kill it, and if they're in a position where they see a convoy of infantry transports they will apply the same lethality that they would if they saw a convoy of tanks.

[Psy500]

@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.

[revolrz22]

@Psy500

Both will be hit with the same antitank weapons if they're available.

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

The BTR only has a heavy machine gun as it is a troops carrier, the BMP has a auto cannon. The crews of BTRs mostly understand their gun is just there for defense not offense, mostly to provide cover fire while troops mount/dismount. The 8 troops inside the BTR (as passengers) would have a much better chance taking out any threat (once they dismount) then the BTR itself.

[revolrz22]

@Psy500

It doesn't matter. Both are enemy assets which will be targeted with whatever anti vehicular weapons are available in a war situation.

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

The BTR after its troops dismounts going to be trying to hold back from the fighting till it is needed again. Meaning if you give the BTR enough time it would move out of range on its own as it is far more valuable to be in reserve as a extraction vehicle then risking it in engaging enemy forces, or to ferry ammo.

So while yet it will be targeted it become more a logistical target after it droops of the troops.

[Psy500]

I meant that other then transporting troops it only other possible role is ferrying ammo.

[revolrz22]

@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.

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

Actually that was the point of the BTR going back the BTR-152 that had no weapons at all and was just a armored truck that could just get shot at in battle. Even its replacement the BTR-60 that actually had a machine gun could did little but provide cover fire in battle. Also you talk like infantry can't look after themselves and can't live without a machine gun on a armored truck.

[Psy500]

You are right that it is favorable to hit a transport with troops but when they are empty they are not much of threat and won't be looking for trouble rather trying to hang back from the fighting unless infantry calls them forward for to bring up supplies, bring up medics, bring back wounded, move troops or if they are so desperate the dinky machine gun is worth risking the transport.

[revolrz22]

@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?"

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

I doubt even mechanized infantry will keep their armor upfront in the face of a strong anti-tank presence.

As for enemy prioritization, I doubt enemy air power will bother with lone APCs (like the M113) hanging back from the fighting if there are better targets of opportunity like tanks or the IFV (like the Bradely). Same with enemy tanks, sure they will fire on empty M113s if there is nothing better but if there are better targets or bigger threats they'll deal with them.

[revolrz22]

@Psy500

You aren't understanding. These vehicles are not like the 'battle taxies' described in this video. I'm not sure how the Russians employ their mechanized infantry, but in the U.S. APCs and IFVs don't simply drive their troops into the middle of a battle and then strand them there, driving back to base. They stay and provide transport, storage, and firepower. This has been true for the U.S. even in the days of the half track in WWII.

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

Not true for the U.S M113, it doesn't have the firepower or protection to stay with troops would be a gain sign that infantry are near by if it did follow troops. The M113 tend to hang back a safe distance and with the Soviet BTR. The Bradley was suppose to be a replacement for the M113. On the other hand a IFV is the mixture of a LIGHT tank with a APC, if you look at a BMP next to a Bradley you'd notice the Bradley looms over it (BMP-3 is 7ft tall while the Bradley is 10ft tall)

[Psy500]

See the USSR put the BMP (IFV) and BTR (APC) in two different roles and engineered them with different roles in mind. Here we see the Bradley engineered to be a APC being re-engineered into a IFV, tank destroyer and recon. Basically a jack of all trade master of none while USSR planner had a vehicle for each of the roles. BMP (IFV), BRDM (recon and in other configurations tank destroyer, note the idea was for the Bradley to fill all these roles in a single configuration)

[revolrz22]

@Psy500

Look up "M113" on google image search. One of the first pictures is of an M133 hull with RPG penetrations.

Evidence that the enemy won't particularly care what vehicle it is, and will use whatever weapons are available to destroy it regardless.

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

Yhea that is not really unloading on you with all they got, the idea is the Bradley is so large that the enemy would think "oh shit a tank, kill it before it kills us!" not "hey a IVF should we knock it out if we can?" Basically what is the point in making something originally designed to move troops look like a main battle tank? The Bradley is about as tall as the Patton, okay small main gun but that is if the enemy is getting a good look to notice and remaining calm.

[revolrz22]

@Psy500

The point is that they attacked the M113 with antitank weapons, just as they would have done with a Bradley. It made no difference to them, and this whole "It looks like a tank! It'll draw more fire" thing over exaggerated nonsense.

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

If you are a MBT like the T-80 the Bradley (without its anti-tank missiles) is a non-threat it at worse its main gun will scratch the paint job and annoy the crew the inside with the noise. Yet the idea is before the USSR knows the Bradley is not a MBT (and before it had anti-tank missiles) they would treat could have treated the Bradley like a MBT trying to kill it before it could scratch their paint thinking it could actually hurt them.

[Psy500]

@Psy500

Then there is the issue of how the USSR would have reacted to seeing many Bradley if they thought they were MBTs, which according to their doctrine would have to use heavy air and artillery power against them.

[revolrz22]

@Psy500

Either way, the 'idea' is wrong. We've seen that if the enemy sees a vehicle, they will hit it with whatever weapons are available. It makes sense from a tactical and strategic perspective, and we have evidence that this was the case even before American APCs were notably armed.

Of course, now this just becomes academic. You're arguing tooth and nail for the unquestionable accuracy of a movie that, although about a true event, clearly takes liberties with characters and plot.

[Psy500]

@revolrz22

Not disciplined militarizes, remeber the Bradley was meant to fight the USSR. Meaning tanks crews would have primary and secondary objectives and carrying mixed types ammo (as the USSR used MBT tanks as mutli-role vehicles) thus not have enough ammo to go after every target. 

[Psy500]

@Psy500

So the size of Bradley with a turret raises the question what would USSR tank crews think we they see a Bradley for the first time yet have higher priorities then hitting IFVs. For example if the tanks were on their way to provide infantry with fortification busting duties thus loaded with HE rounds and sees a Bradley, ideally the tank crew would want to not have to stop to mess with if the MBT and carry on with its orders.

[Psy500]

But if the tank crews see the Bradley as a imminent threat to them tank would of course reload their gun with anti-tank rounds (which HE rounds are not, they are meant to blow fortifications up and kill infantry with they massive blast radius) and start to engage them thinking the Bradley's main gun (that in comparison to MBT's armor is a pee shooter) is a threat to them.

[adrianwainer]

@revolrz22 The problem with the Bradley is that it was designed to be a battlefield taxi and got turned in to a light tank and recon-vehicle, whilst also retaining it's battlefield taxi role ands does none of those roles particular well. The German Marder IFV appears to have been designed from the get go to fulfill the roles the Bradley was asked to carry out and does them rather better.

[adrianwainer]

@revolrz22 The argument that it looks like a tank so the enemy will attack it, is overplayed in the movie, as an enemy tanker will shoot up enemy vehicles which present no threat to him, if he can spare the ammunition and his ROE allow it, for example civilian freight trucks carrying food but what is true is that an enemy tanker will be more interested to kill an enemy APC, if he thinks it has tank killing capabilities.

[renegadebiker24]

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.

[Mandelbrotmat]

And to think because of these morons I had to drive that piece of shit for 3 months in iraq. No wonder I left the army

[Boinkmakr]

Jack off all trades master of none

[cas343]

@Boinkmakr Is often better than the master of one. That's how the saying ends.

[AbokaseeRouge]

@Boinkmakr *master of fuck all

[Magni56]

You know what's the real joke: All of that happened in reality.

[adrastea99]

lolololol

Gavin

[jcdUNATCO]

Arrrgh... It isn't called Gavin, that was a massive hoax.

[adrastea99]

Good thing I was joking then

[DjJohnDuke]

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.

[blackthunderpod]

love it!

[TheRadical42]

Hey guys! I saw some people asking of the movie. It is still available. Made by HBO. It may come around TV from time to time, but I think you're better off looking at Netflix or Amazon. (They both have it.)

-It IS worth watching. This is just a small section of it. There is A LOT more silliness.

[mlarosa25]

and you know what the sad part of all that movie had shown, is how most of what was presented as comedy was probably true ornot far off from the truth in terms of millitary development :"(

[TheRadical42]

100 Snazzes on the 100 Point Snazz-o-Scale! PERFECT!

-A Great Clip from a Great Movie!

-The entire movie is Bureaucracy at its Best (Worst?) but these few minutes are especially hilarious and goofy. I just love it. Not only is it funny, but look at the details as the years pass.

-The presentations get bigger. The uniforms change. The Presidential pictures change.

-I know this movie well. At the end they announce the project took 17 years and cost 14 BILLION dollars. EEK!

[KaristaSwiss]

poor guy. a simple product turned to crap heheheh

[RedoubtWolf]

anyone know where the whole movie is?

[dawsonoo7]

on my laptop

[Magni56]

Simply type the Pentagon Wars into the search. The movie is on youtube, separated in 10 parts.

[RedoubtWolf]

Ah thank you :)

Though it actually wasn't on 5 months ago when I posted my original comment. And since then, I have rented it from Netflix.

But I do appreciate it anyway. :)

[DKMBismarck]

Gosh, I really wanna watch this

[SapperK9]

OMG, the Australian FSV...

[fenwick23]

There was a British movie along these lines about the M16. Pretty good

[Girder2]

Do you remember the title?

[maxxgraber]

As a veteran of the Army...this is so true!

[KnowlegeIsPower1210]

This is hilarious!