I am a bradley gunner in the army national guard and me personally i dont think there is a better IFV out there then the bradley. put it this way while i was deployed to iraq it saved me and my crews ass on more then one occasion from RPG fire not to mention the troops we were carrying with us great vehicle wouldnt gun anything else
@GasGuzzler2004 * You don't get it,obviously.$14,Billion???? A brand NEW M113A3,cost $300,000.The Bradley is a wonderful machine,but the tax payers were overcharged.Congress stepped in to "WATCH" the Military OVER Spending.This is the POINT.
@billy1212ist I DO get it. I was mech inf in the late 80s in Germany and I drove and gunned from the bradley and I worked with the 113s also. the 113 is zero comparison to the Bradley. M2s were developed to stand up to the soviet union. This kind of spending sucks, but if thats what it took to win the cold war... than I say it was worth it. unlike the commanche 7 Billion loss, and they are not being produced. The Bradleys and Abrams stomped a mudhole in Iraqs ass, so yes I get it
@billy1212ist ... And like Russ said. how can you put a price limit on a soldiers life? people complain that we lost lives in war, but with a $300k vehicle like you sugested, we would have lost many more. excuse my spelling,
@GasGuzzler2004 *You are READING what YOU think into what I'm saying,making me look wrong and a fool.I AM NOT PUTTING A "PRICE TAG"ON A SOLDIERS LIFE....There was simply ALLOT of OVERSPENDING DONE by the Military,$1200.00 Toilet Seats,have been Sighted.So MUCH OVERSPENDING that a Movie was made about it.CONGRESS stepped in and stopped the OVERSPENDING,watch the film then speak.The Bradley IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE,the Overspending is.The inflated prices that they charged themselves.
@billy1212ist I agree. Its obvious that the Gov. overspends. That really isnt news. Now if they spent billions developing the M2, then scrapped the project (like the RAH-66) to me, that would be a waste of money. But look how many were produced and used in combat, and with such great results... the mold was expensive, but "I" feel in the bradley's case it was worth it. I dont agree with spend $1200 for a toilet set, but maybe a soldier whos life was saved by one, would.
@GasGuzzler2004 *Saved by a Toilet Seat?..Of course not.Yes that is the movie,it will show you ALL that you are unaware of.WATCH IT.You HARP on the point of being SAVED by one,stop it will you,I got YOUR message.Sadly you have NOT gotten mine.Just as a $1200.Toilet seat would irk you,so will the Bradley overspending.Basically it was the Administration changing what it wanted,first a troop carrier,then a troop carrier with a gun,then if with a gun,must have armor,then with armor,bigger gun etc.
@billy1212ist I was joking about the toilet seat saving a live, but I used it a metafore for the bradley. I have the movie, as a former Bradley operater. and I wish the developement was free, but it did its job in combat. and I do understand your point about overspending. I really do get it., I am just byist when it comes to the DOD. I was in Germany when the wall came down and The cold war ended. its like someone who survived cancer. they dont care if the treatment was costly.
@GasGuzzler2004 Well then in essence we agree.In Your shoes,I'd say F**KEN A RIGHT.purely a means to an end.I just personally find it sickening how the"Brass" of the Country/World ,could care less,Now and through History,about the Soldiers.A very good friend of mine,Paul Simon,a nice,well educated guy,"Going to sail around the world." guy.NAM,ate him.Then years later the lies told the public,revealed. I AM GLAD,you are alright.The lies anger me,not the Bradley or the Toilet Seats.BE OK .
@Russ4777 *You MISS the point.YES The Bradley is a WONDERFUL MACHINE,OK ? The POINT is,we were so over charged for it.So much so,a film was made about how the tax payers were duped,and robbed.So save the "ask the soldiers" comments,and research the "POINT".This went to Congress,and The Needless OVERSPENDING was stopped.
@Russ4777 Well, it stalled out every time my driver tried a turn, it sky-lined so much it just as well have had a target painted on the underside, and I had to tell him where to go by hitting him in the head with a stick because the CVC helmets never worked (and yes we had to drive with our heads sticking out because you can't see out of the damn thing). I'm glad I ETS'd before our unit was due to deploy overseas with these death traps.
This vehicle is the FS3 varient of the M2A3 BFIST. The TOW launcher has been removed and replaced with the armored box you see in the video. Inside that box is a sensor called the LRAS3. For your info, there is no such thing as a TOW launcher with four tubes. Whenever you have seen a "box" out there with four tubes it is a Stinger missle launcher.
I am a bradley gunner in the army national guard and me personally i dont think there is a better IFV out there then the bradley. put it this way while i was deployed to iraq it saved me and my crews ass on more then one occasion from RPG fire not to mention the troops we were carrying with us great vehicle wouldnt gun anything else
bradleygunner20 1 month ago
Gee.....I didn't know YouTube was a political discussion venue.
Russ4777 1 month ago
I would find nicer a sexy russian getting on a BMP-3 ;)
zerocker45 2 months ago
The "Bradley", took 17 YEARS,to design and build, costing Tax Payers $ 14,BILLION DOLLARS. How do any of you feel about that ?
billy1212ist 2 months ago
@billy1212ist Worth every cent.
GasGuzzler2004 2 months ago
@GasGuzzler2004 * You don't get it,obviously.$14,Billion???? A brand NEW M113A3,cost $300,000.The Bradley is a wonderful machine,but the tax payers were overcharged.Congress stepped in to "WATCH" the Military OVER Spending.This is the POINT.
billy1212ist 2 months ago
@billy1212ist I DO get it. I was mech inf in the late 80s in Germany and I drove and gunned from the bradley and I worked with the 113s also. the 113 is zero comparison to the Bradley. M2s were developed to stand up to the soviet union. This kind of spending sucks, but if thats what it took to win the cold war... than I say it was worth it. unlike the commanche 7 Billion loss, and they are not being produced. The Bradleys and Abrams stomped a mudhole in Iraqs ass, so yes I get it
GasGuzzler2004 2 months ago
@billy1212ist ... And like Russ said. how can you put a price limit on a soldiers life? people complain that we lost lives in war, but with a $300k vehicle like you sugested, we would have lost many more. excuse my spelling,
GasGuzzler2004 2 months ago
@GasGuzzler2004 *You are READING what YOU think into what I'm saying,making me look wrong and a fool.I AM NOT PUTTING A "PRICE TAG"ON A SOLDIERS LIFE....There was simply ALLOT of OVERSPENDING DONE by the Military,$1200.00 Toilet Seats,have been Sighted.So MUCH OVERSPENDING that a Movie was made about it.CONGRESS stepped in and stopped the OVERSPENDING,watch the film then speak.The Bradley IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE,the Overspending is.The inflated prices that they charged themselves.
billy1212ist 1 month ago
@billy1212ist I agree. Its obvious that the Gov. overspends. That really isnt news. Now if they spent billions developing the M2, then scrapped the project (like the RAH-66) to me, that would be a waste of money. But look how many were produced and used in combat, and with such great results... the mold was expensive, but "I" feel in the bradley's case it was worth it. I dont agree with spend $1200 for a toilet set, but maybe a soldier whos life was saved by one, would.
GasGuzzler2004 1 month ago
@GasGuzzler2004 *Saved by a Toilet Seat?..Of course not.Yes that is the movie,it will show you ALL that you are unaware of.WATCH IT.You HARP on the point of being SAVED by one,stop it will you,I got YOUR message.Sadly you have NOT gotten mine.Just as a $1200.Toilet seat would irk you,so will the Bradley overspending.Basically it was the Administration changing what it wanted,first a troop carrier,then a troop carrier with a gun,then if with a gun,must have armor,then with armor,bigger gun etc.
billy1212ist 1 month ago
@billy1212ist I was joking about the toilet seat saving a live, but I used it a metafore for the bradley. I have the movie, as a former Bradley operater. and I wish the developement was free, but it did its job in combat. and I do understand your point about overspending. I really do get it., I am just byist when it comes to the DOD. I was in Germany when the wall came down and The cold war ended. its like someone who survived cancer. they dont care if the treatment was costly.
GasGuzzler2004 1 month ago
@GasGuzzler2004 Well then in essence we agree.In Your shoes,I'd say F**KEN A RIGHT.purely a means to an end.I just personally find it sickening how the"Brass" of the Country/World ,could care less,Now and through History,about the Soldiers.A very good friend of mine,Paul Simon,a nice,well educated guy,"Going to sail around the world." guy.NAM,ate him.Then years later the lies told the public,revealed. I AM GLAD,you are alright.The lies anger me,not the Bradley or the Toilet Seats.BE OK .
billy1212ist 1 month ago
@billy1212ist Oh, btw Is the film you are refuring to called "The Pentagon Wars"?
GasGuzzler2004 1 month ago
@billy1212ist
Ask the soldiers whose lives were saved by this vehicle during 3 conflicts if they think the Bradley is worth every cent to develop it.
Russ4777 2 months ago
@Russ4777 *You MISS the point.YES The Bradley is a WONDERFUL MACHINE,OK ? The POINT is,we were so over charged for it.So much so,a film was made about how the tax payers were duped,and robbed.So save the "ask the soldiers" comments,and research the "POINT".This went to Congress,and The Needless OVERSPENDING was stopped.
billy1212ist 2 months ago
@Russ4777 Well, it stalled out every time my driver tried a turn, it sky-lined so much it just as well have had a target painted on the underside, and I had to tell him where to go by hitting him in the head with a stick because the CVC helmets never worked (and yes we had to drive with our heads sticking out because you can't see out of the damn thing). I'm glad I ETS'd before our unit was due to deploy overseas with these death traps.
ZombieFBody 1 month ago
@ZombieFBody Luckily our prior deployment let us leave these at home and had some 113s on site!
ZombieFBody 1 month ago
@Russ4777 That's not a valid argument. Any other vehicle could have done the same thing.
clawbog2 1 month ago
God I wish we had a girl on our track
volvo4422 2 months ago
Take to Ralleys to get a burger, lol.
I live near a Textron facility, really to different textron facilities. I see them test driving armoured vehicles on public roads sometimes.
I also got to see a huge hover/landing craft out in Lake Borne/Ponchatrain
xyz32bpb 4 months ago
This vehicle is the FS3 varient of the M2A3 BFIST. The TOW launcher has been removed and replaced with the armored box you see in the video. Inside that box is a sensor called the LRAS3. For your info, there is no such thing as a TOW launcher with four tubes. Whenever you have seen a "box" out there with four tubes it is a Stinger missle launcher.
Russ4777 6 months ago
does that model cary the 4 tow missile box.? Or just 2?
willsworthy 6 months ago
Mute whatever you want.....
Russ4777 7 months ago
mute button
sayasudahsiapmati 7 months ago
Hey Russ.... we have more fun with them at our place :) - Neal
Montegorx 8 months ago
Man! That lady in the Bradley is HOT.... oh yeah, the Bradley is hot too.
357223308 10 months ago
did you made the tank or the army gave it to you?
PILUPACKSXXX 1 year ago
@PILUPACKSXXX
No. I work for the company that designed and builds the BFV.
Russ4777 1 year ago