4 ms·

Bradley IFV is not on this list.

runlaszlorun 3y ago
Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role. And, no, that one set of photos from Ukraine of Bradleys damaged in a minefield has zero bearing pro or con given the 40 years of experience we have otherwise with it.
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  My friends in Ukraine fucking love the Bradley. It fills a lot of roles, being very useful for casevac under fire (much better than many alternative options).
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  I find it quite amusing how proud American guys are defending their MIC... which took 15 years to produce Bradley. This thread is not about how good/bad M2 is. Please re-read the comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482
fullspectrumdev 3y ago
The Bradley is actually good. Did it have some initial hiccups? Sure, but all military equipment has. These days? The Bradley fucking rocks. My friends out in harms way love them.
georgeecollins 3y ago
Say what you want about the Bradley, and criticism of the military is very healthy! I think the war in Ukraine shows that while the project may have been wasteful the end result is still useful.
mustacheemperor 3y ago
Because the Bradley IFV was only a boondoggle within the almost completely fictionalized setting of Pentagon Wars. Someone else pointed out the performance in Ukraine, but IMO this was already a settled point in 1991, when they collectively destroyed more enemy armor than the Abrams and only lost 3 vehicles to enemy fire.
Qwertious 3y ago
The Pentagon Wars was misleading bullshit and the Bradley IFV was a good idea that was slated to come in under budget (before James Burton demanded his tests). The tests were a huge waste of money that conclusively proved that the Bradley couldn't survive an anti-tank missile, which is irrelevant because 1) the Bradley isn't a tank and was never required to survive one, and 2) the Pentagon already knew that; they'd tested the components individually already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk (28min 20sec)

Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role. And, no, that one set of photos from Ukraine of Bradleys damaged in a minefield has zero bearing pro or con given the 40 years of experience we have otherwise with it.

fullspectrumdev 3y ago
My friends in Ukraine fucking love the Bradley. It fills a lot of roles, being very useful for casevac under fire (much better than many alternative options).
justsomehnguy 3y ago
I find it quite amusing how proud American guys are defending their MIC... which took 15 years to produce Bradley. This thread is not about how good/bad M2 is. Please re-read the comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482

fullspectrumdev 3y ago

The Bradley is actually good. Did it have some initial hiccups? Sure, but all military equipment has. These days? The Bradley fucking rocks. My friends out in harms way love them.

georgeecollins 3y ago

Say what you want about the Bradley, and criticism of the military is very healthy! I think the war in Ukraine shows that while the project may have been wasteful the end result is still useful.

mustacheemperor 3y ago

Because the Bradley IFV was only a boondoggle within the almost completely fictionalized setting of Pentagon Wars. Someone else pointed out the performance in Ukraine, but IMO this was already a settled point in 1991, when they collectively destroyed more enemy armor than the Abrams and only lost 3 vehicles to enemy fire.

Qwertious 3y ago

The Pentagon Wars was misleading bullshit and the Bradley IFV was a good idea that was slated to come in under budget (before James Burton demanded his tests). The tests were a huge waste of money that conclusively proved that the Bradley couldn't survive an anti-tank missile, which is irrelevant because 1) the Bradley isn't a tank and was never required to survive one, and 2) the Pentagon already knew that; they'd tested the components individually already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk (28min 20sec)