Circa 1972, Ft. Carson on a 10 day field maneuver, lack of a shower, eating C-rations, no music, no beer and most of all....sleep deprived. As long as i had a place to sit while the vehicle was motoring along, I was not too concerned. With the APC full of grunts, shoulder-to-shoulder, it helped me stay upright in my seat while I tried to snooze. In Vietnam, they rode on top of the APC quite a lot, to stay safer from IEDs. When I was in the Ft. Ord hospital, there was a dude in the bed next to mine, who was wounded while riding inside an APC in Nam, by an RPG (rocket propelled grenade}, which burned his right arm, shoulder and side of his torso. Aluminum did not stop the RPG.
Love the analogy . The issue is responsibility . Who added these requirements and why. If not a good answer instant retirement . If you can hire you can fire. Poor personnel choices are just that . Fire then replace . Works in private enterprise. Why not military where these decision makers are General Staff anyway. Too many Generals.
With all the uniform changes the Navy makes I figure the pentagon is full of senior desk jockeys trying to leave their mark anywhere. So they can point at it and say "see honey, that was my idea". Only to be changed by the next desk rider in the night.
@@richardlooch2109 except for the vast majority of time that our alphabet existed the double-u was written with rounded swoops images.app.goo.gl/NFhUtx8MzoJEgTuX8 . The straighter lines you see today are a very recent alteration and far from universal. Theres a reason a W is called a Double-u, not a Double-v.
10:48 That's a gatling gun, not a chaingun. A chaingun has one barrel, and resembles that of regular cannons. And yes, they use a chain to drive the feed mechanism.
yes you're right good catch it's hard for me to find supporting footage that I have the rights too so sometimes I stretch and make a mistake . wont happen again thanks!
The B-52 is actually really awesome. They keep finding more and more uses for it. Here’s info on how they’re planning on using it as a stand-off missile truck: www.historynet.com/boeing-b-52-stratosaurus.htm
@@orlock20 m 9 bayonet was in the 90s. A US knife bayonet inspired by the AK bayonets. The Marines got one in the 2000s based on a Marine Combat Knife. ( Kabar is only one of the contractors, mine is an Ontario). I think one of the best was a 1909 Bolo. Machete type bayonet.
Glad to see you are getting sponsors for things like the Purdue Cyber program. The industry needs more Veterans with the optimal mindset and good skills.
Well, if Puma and Lynx (both KMW) are the favorites, you actually know the size of the vehicle today. Choosing a different caliber/gun might influence the turret's size but that doesn't change the vehicle's size much. Also you can't hide from aircraft behind terrain (hills etc.) anyways and a vehicle even the size of a Humvee will be seen/detected far beyond weapons range. That air-burst-munition (starting with the current 30mm) also is meant to be used against flying vehicles, basically turning this into FlaK for the MBTs it accompanies, that can't be shrunk anyways. 50mm might make sense especially with this in mind, if it increases range and the amount of shrapnel used against drones and helicopters.
@@Jamypugs Or second -- Iraq, twice. We were an hour away from rolling towards Belgrade when Milosevic tapped out. ISIS rolled into Iraq ballin', new _everything_, and capturing near-peer-gear in such quantities that Shi'ite analysts looked at the images and concluded that they were a front for the USA's hating-them-for-their-freedom, heading for Iran. Speaking of Iran, they're about to get all that good PRC colony gear. The "4th world" -- the bottom of the Third, as only three are established in standard usage -- pretty sure drones are gonna be the answer there forevermore, for better or worse or less worse. Oh, speaking of drones, Iranian proxies are doing very interesting things with them, let's hope TAPs can do something against the small ones. Maybe this is why AAA chaingun moad is desirable. Oh, and don't forget that IED-deflecting wedge-shaped nut cup. ` This is not to say, however, that I believe the conventional side of "near-peer warfare" isn't being overemphasized across-the-board. The DOD/USMC/Army seems to be doing what they did after Viet Nam -- "Well, that was a whole lot of suck. Clearly, they won't make us do _that_ again, so we can safely focus on easier-to-explain-on-TV warfare."
Yes but can the chain gun be detached? In the event that it needs to be... oh I don’t know... humped through the jungle by an ex-wrestler to take out guerrillas/predators.
No wonder you rode in the back - the M913 is a “chain gun” not a Gatling-type like the video shows. All you ground pounders are the same but keep pumping out the videos - they’re great!!! Thanks!
This sure dates me. When I was in OCS at Ft Benning in 1977, I remember classes on the "new" Bradley fighting vehicle slated to replace the M113 family of APC's.
Australia is in the process of evaluatiing final 2 in its IFV selection (Rhinemetal Lynx and Hanwha Redback 21) they carry 8 man squad 30mm main gun 2 Spike ER missiles and anti missile systems. They have also been designed to upgrade gun to 40/50mm.
Lynx is an awesome choice. Cheaper and easier to maintain than the Puma. It also has mostly proven "of the shelf" solutions all across the design. Puma does not seem to have a +40t heaviest version finished. Do Australia procures Boxer 8x8 as well? I've seen it running - what a sound. It looks better even compared to Patria AMV XP. Your Hawkey, is it made with a metric or imperial standard?
@@HanSolo__ A really good IFV but unfortunately Lynx only carries 6 troops in the back which is why it didn't meet our standard of 8 troops. Yes we also picked the boxer as our Cavalry Recon Vehicle again with 30mm and same AT missile. Yes Hawkeye is Metric, Australia works in the Metric system.
@@mylesdobinson1534 Thaks for your answer. As far as I remember Rheinmetall claimed Lynx to take up to 9 soldiers. I guess it depends on the amount of the stuff soldiers will take with them and if separate (those anti-mine type as a safety feature) seats are fitted there, it can be too tight for more than 6 - as you said. Hawkei is an awesome vehicle. I saw it in Poland at the Kiece EXPO few years ago.
Need to remember one thing though, the bigger the Gun, means bigger harder hitting Rounds but it also means you carry less rounds. Its a balance thing, you may need a 50mm Gun to penetrate some Armour but its a overkill for Infantry in the open or thin skinned Vehicles where a greater quantity of Smaller Rounds is better.
it may strike a balance between sub-30mm autocannon intended for infantry, light vehicles & thin walls, and the 120mm cannon for tank killing 50mm gun may be able to handle fortifications in situations that a 120mm could cause too much collateral damage (for example, in urban warfare)
I’m just a normal civilian and wasn’t even into military tech until I started watching your videos. Now I’ve watched all your videos and support you. Keep it up guys.
I mean, if they want a 40mm, us Swedes have been using one for decades with the CV90. With Bofors 3P programmable rounds it can engage any thin skin target, from ground targets to missiles and jet aircraft, as well as infantry behind solid cover via airburst, or targets in a building through a delayed fuse. And if you desperately want something bigger, it also comes in a 57mm flavor.
They tested the 40mm a lot as we use it on the C130 gunship. They found the 35/50mm is more effective. It makes sense as the SuperShot 50 gives you a larger warhead. 40mm is still good
@@smithnwesson990 No 40mm is more effective then 35mm(on ground vehicles I have no background from the air force) , however , US had large stockpiles of 35mm ammo , so it was a easy choice to pick from an economic standpoint (Norway did the same recently). The main selling argument is probebly that the 40mm have been used for decades now for what they now want the 50mm system to do , so no need to invent the wheel again. But it comes down to - do you want more ammo with you in the field using 40mm or do you want more effect on target with less ammo ? No matter what system they pick , I can gladly inform you that programable rounds are the future , as in you can make new rounds with the characteristics you need in the future you didnt know you needed when you first bought the system , so growth is no problem for the gun system , assuming the caliber they chose is 40mm or more.
As crazy technical and complex as these vehicles are becoming, I think it's important that they have manual overrides in case of electrical or sensor failures. A human driver will always be able to operate as long as they aren't incapacitated, but self-driving vehicles have many more things that could go wrong and disrupt their functioning.
You may not be wrong but part of the reason military electronics cost so much is because of the build quality and software verification. Basically the same reasons avionics are so expensive
I served in KESK (KAMPESKADRONEN) Norwegian mechanised infantry unit, in 2017. We used CV90 which is so far superior to your Bradly. We where 9 infantrymen in the cv90, a gunner, a driver and a commander. 12 total. Anyways, I don't understand why the US wants to create new IFV when we have existing alternatives in NATO. I can't imagine splitting your squad, what made the mechanised infantry effective is that we can dismount on top of a objective having the co-axial machine gun and 30mm auto cannon pouring down the trenches as we disembark an entire unit into their position. We used half the amount of resources and co-ordination for the same objective as a squad in 2 bradlys. Anyways, great video.
Far Superior is a relative term. Both are dead from an anti tank missile or well placed RPG. Think the point was it wasn't worth buying new IFVs for a little more capability. Now getting an IFV with a 50mm and Double V hull is actually a a good enough leap. Not to mention the US military is big meaning they can't just buy a few vehicles like smaller nations
@@smithnwesson990 We add armour and active defence systems to repel rpg's and anti tank missiles. Our additional armour, makes us capable of (idk but I think its off) surviving a direct hit from an RPG to the rear and the sides. But I've yet to see all the additional armour deployed as its shortens the service life of the vehicle. But, our targeting systems, 40mm auto cannon and wast array of weapon systems mounted on the RWS allows us to deploy in a wide variety of roles. As an Tank Destroyer, IFV, Close fire support (120-200mm mortar) etc. There are many advantages to the CV90 platform but the strongest argument is the shared targeting information across, troops, companies and battalions. It allows us to co-ordinate at a much higher level. I might be biased as the only 3 IFV I've had any experience with is CV90, BRADLY and BMP 3. I've only served in the cv90, but talked to crews of both the BMP and Bradly.
Splitting the Squad up isn't that bad, because each Brad can fit 7 dismounts (there's a seat in the hellhole, right behind the driver, for the squads smallest guy). Though maybe I've been mechanized for too long, and small shit shows no longer register as shit shows to me. I can say damn near everyone who has experienced a Bradley (minus a few gearheads and nerds) would rather walk instead of sit in one, or be a crewman for one, they're unreliable, uncomfortable, I personally despise them and couldn't imagine having to place my life in the hands of a Bradley.
The cv90 is really only far superior on paper. The Bradley system - which is the vehicle, all its upgrades up to the current moment, the US logistics backing, and the doctrine that goes along with it - is still the most effective IFV _system_ out there. Most of the small and not sexy Tech - sensors, APU, reactive armor, internal wiring and safety mechanisms and so on - are better than the cv90. Admittedly it's not because the swedes couldn't make a good vehicle, it's because they don't have the money to spend
Could you imagine having a member of the squad to have a controller to control it, even program it to move using grid cordinates. Having it bound with the squad in a combat situation, having that cannon right there. Badass. Two of the Military's favorite terms applies here, force multiplier and fire superiority.
I have been meaning to ask your opinion of “The Pentagon Wars” for a while now. Love the channel. Keep it up. Still waiting on that Marines/Army squad organization video. Stay safe, Lawn Guy Land. 😏
funny you mention that I was literally just thinking about that Marines / Army squad comparison video ! I did get a lot of responses that people would be interested in that. I'm going to have it released by the end of the month is my hope!
Just wanted to say great job with the channel guys! Super informative for miltech nerds who wouldn't otherwise get the practical perspective and opinions from an actual vet who has experience with a lot of these systems. I've always been interested in the space just to see how we're doing compared to societies in sci-fi universes from books/movies/games. I mean let's get these rail guns, point defense lasers, and exo-suits deployed already, amirite? I think you've also struck a great tone and style for the channel - I'm genuinely cracking up at the meme references and self-deprecating humor. On point and then right back to interesting info, distilled from actually diving into these reports, and having used the equipment. Anyways I'm sure a lot of these were intentional decisions on your part, just wanted to say well done, and thanks for putting these together!
Thank you to all you Bradley gunners who shot at the Brandly Range in the Graffenwhor Training Area from 91 through 93. My barracks were only a few hundred meters from the entrance and yall rocked me to sleep almost every night
That cancelled ground combat vehicle with 84 tons seems a lot like what happened with the Porsche tiger prototype hulls being turned into ferdinands in world war 2. The the brass ignored the MASSIVE failure that was the transmission (which was VERY VERY VERY prone to failure) and kept adding other things on instead
@@MrJH101 effectiveness has nothing to do with making money. Its more like exaggerate costs and overwork grunts so that the people running the contractor company who actually do nothing can enjoy their fat paycheck.
Right, that’s why the Army wants ineffective crap on purpose, fOr tHe PaYcHeCk. Not like there’s long tests with multiple designs and the one that’s decently priced and effective is the one they ideally want.
In engineering we use decision matrices to determine what the most important features are. You start off designing a system with as much as you can, but you always have to make sacrifices and knowing how everything compares helps you make informed decisions.
The Army went with Bradley because it knew that Congress wouldn't approve the array of vehicles which were actually needed, ie a light, wheeled infantry fighting vehicle like LAV; a light tracked, amphibious cavalry vehicle, and a heavily armored IFV to operate with tanks. So a committee designed Bradley, which was never really amphibious. But finally we did get Stryker, the LAV APC/IFV variant. An Abrams-based HAIFV capable of carrying a full squad would be big and expensive, but it's what armored brigades need.
The Bradley did not go the direction it did because of Congress, it did so because of the military's bureaucracy. Watch Pentagon Wars, it gives a good summary of the making of the Bradley.
@@blastulae of course they do, but significantly more than both M113 vehicle and their unused cavalry variants, most importantly too heavy for deployment by c130.
I was sooo frustrated when our forces started hitting IEDs. It was like they didn't know what to do. In Rhodesia back in the 70s had the same problem and solved it with V shaped bottoms made in Sweden. As usual we don't learn from the past and have to Americanize everything. Your right with 200 requirements by desk jocky REMFs.
"(...) Rhodesia back in the 70s had the same problem (...)" Somewhat off topic, but actually studying the 'bush wars' by South Africa would have prevented the 'Bradley' pyramid scheme and would have given the US Army and Marine Corps a rapid deployment force of _motorized_ infantry units, capable to accompany tanks in most climates.
No one in internet have such charisma and ability to speak about serious issues your interesting, funny and fact backed way as you. Greetings from Serbia. Great job. Your every vid is literally best on chosen theme.
You mean that satirical movie that exaggerates issues with the Bradley? The movie that was based off a book made by a person who despises technology to the point he says a M48 is more survivable than a M1 Abrams? The guy who’s programs consisted of stuffing ships, planes and vehicles to the brim and then shoot them with weaponry that they were never meant to handle? Yah go ahead, the movie was fun and hilarious
I'm Swedish so I'm of course Biased but i really thought that the CV90(Combat Vehicle 90) would replace the Bradley. I've only trained with that vehicle but we put it through some harsh terrain and treatment, without issues. I've also heard that the ISAF forces were satisfied with it down it the punishing deserts of Afghanistan.
I served in Afghanistan along side the CV90. They're so cool and bad ass and super tough I dont recall one ever breaking down. Great vehicle and I would love for the US to adopt the vehicle.
What´s about those Puma and Lynx images? Did you just put them in the video because their also infantry fighting vehicles or why I don´t see a real reason
Here in Israel they just stripped the main battle tank of the turret and ammo, freeing up space for infantry. Much better for logistics to have the same platform
Except it weighs 60 tones. You negate any logistical gains your have by having pets commonality by losing the ability to transport it anywhere rapidly.
@@kolinmartz "(...) losing the ability to transport it anywhere rapidly" In general - and for a maritime power, especially - indeed. In the geographical context of Eretz Israel, however 'mobility' means 'pressing the gas pedal until one reaches the border in 120 minutes'. Any border, that is...
@@kolinmartz "(...) nobody here was talking about mobility." I am. Take a look at the Merkavah and how it was deployed in _stationary defense positions_ , standing off advancing Arab armour. One can _walk_ from one border of the country to the opposite border - in _a day_ . Mobility isn't a requirement - neither is overstretching of supply lines a probability. That's why main battle tank conversions to APCs are popular in Israel.
@@christophmahler Is the T-72 the mbt of Israel? If so, what are they gonna do about that reverse speed? Also, isn't that tank a bit too low silhouette to act as an IFV, especially if the turret came off?
My Mech platoon was equipped with M113s and the big discussion/ debate at the was over whether to go the Dragoon or Hussar route. The Dragoon concept, was that the APC transported the infantry to the battlefield where they dismounted and attacked the objective on foot with the APCs providing covering fire with their M2HBs. The Hussar concept called for the infantry to fight from the APC all the way to the objective and only dismount to secure it. Neither side really won and the result was the Bradly. Which effectively is a light tank that can carry too few infantry. And because the Army asked the Air Force the wrong question was less then an inch two wide for transport in a C130. Seems that the Army still has not derided between the Dragoon or Hussar. Good presentation!
Seems with the growing use of drones it will need improved anti-air capabilities, but hopefully that will be just a part of the new weapon and fire control system.
I think modularity can be a great thing, it can safe cost and space ... for example the german/dutch boxer has different mission moduls like medevac, command or ifv so you need one vehicle and can switch between the diffrent roles instead of having three different vehicles, also you can adapt and build new future moduls for new roles
0:44)9 TROOPS = 3 Squadrons = 1 REGIMENT = about 1,215 men. 2:01) 20mm = 0.78 inch. 50mm = 1.99 inches. 3.12)I was with a Land Engineer Company, 20th Battalion, 18th Combat Engineer Brigade.The D7E Caterpillars we used had rounded belly plates. A mine was exploded under one.A track was broken and a big dent put in the plate.The operator walked away with bleeding ears. 11:07)4Km = 2.4858 miles. 12:21)I was in Company C, 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (First of the First). I was in the 1st platoon's 3rd Squad. I operated ( M 113) C13. I was assigned to the job because of my D7E experience.Track commanders (TC) & track operators ( TO) were attached to a rifle squad, but didn't deploy with them. TCs manned the .50 cal. HMG. TOs were also radio men.
Why are we upgrading to 50mm rounds and cannons when we already have 40mm rounds being made for the Bofors cannons on Ac-130's? Our grandfathers used Bofors cannons to shoot down planes. Putting one in a Bradley will save more money.
CV9040 and CV9030 are already among the best IFVs and use 40/40mm to good effect with lots of interesting ammo choices now and in development. 50mm rounds mean way less ammo to be carried.
@@olaruud9366 Yup. I know the value of some points in 40mm over those in 30mm. But a single round of 40 takes as much space as 3 rounds of 30mm. With 30mm top ammo capable of 90% tasks the 40mm does, for 1/2 of the price. Now compare this to 50mm which starts to look like tank/cannon ammo. Russian 57mm - well it is actually a cannon ammo. How much of these you can carry? 100? It makes 6 or maybe 7 bursts from the chain autocannon.
@@arvedludwig3584 Thats right. Edit: I think any 50mm or 57mm IFV/APC could be reasonable introduced as one vehicle per platoon (3-4 per company, tactics depending). Also, with a 50/57 gun you gonna need a roof/hatch mounted 14,5mm for commander. Which on the field will eventualy become the most used weapon. Because "hey we have only 25 HE, 50 APFS, 25 HEAT - $500 each!"
The Bradley came into service in the 80s and been around through two wars. And countless deployments and successes in all of them ,so really they did not fail. I became an 11M In 1990 fort Benning Georgia, later we dropped they 11M and just where 11B. Same shit
Here's an interim solution for the Bradley; Take the turret off of the Bradley and put an electrically driven commander's cupola on it with a new .50 Caliber (the quick-change barrel version) and a BUNCH of smoke dischargers on it. Use the weight and space gained from taking the original turret off to add some armor and allow an 8-man squad to be carried. Call it an uparmored APC and leave it the hell ALONE from there.
"Use the weight and space gained from taking the original turret off to add some armor and allow an 8-man squad to be carried." Agreed. Saving billions from developing another 'IFV' could be invested in larger tank platoons or additional tank attachments in mechanized brigades - providing the actual armour and fire support, infantry requires.
I am a retired infantryman or 11 bravo and i was also an 11 hotel mechanized infantry and 19 delta scout. the M2 BRADLEY was not used by the infantry in the 1990's but the M113 and M901 which we used at FORT IRWIN and currently both were replaced by the STRYKER. The M2 BRADLEY is used by 19 delta cavalry scouts in the 2000's to present. I am a cold war and gulf wars veteran.
While I’m a big fan of having a vehicle that can finally carry the whole squad of 9 people...... maybe we should rethink the squads. All jokes aside, several discontinuities since 1946, 74 years ago, necessitates the rethinking of the legacy 9 man squad. The improvements in the accuracy of fires, targeting, and reconnaissance systems used by peer and near peer adversaries of the US necessitates in future engagements the use of the squad as the smallest primary unit for fire and maneuver instead of the platoon in the battle space. Another discontinuity is the increase growth of urbanization and how it will affect attrition of personnel. Engagements against a conventional adversary in urban terrain will incur higher attrition levels than what the US has faced in recent decades against insurgents or non-peer conventional forces. Another one of the biggest reasons they cited as to why they decreased the size of the squad was the fact that 9-10 people is the optimal number to be effectively controlled by conscripted NCOs and replacement conscripts will find it easier to integrate with a smaller squad. However we haven’t had conscripts since 1973, 47 years ago and currently the general US population is more tech savvy and trainable if we are faced with a mass mobilization scenario. They also made the incorrect assumption they’ve always made that “current and future weapons development will increase individual firepower and compensate for the lack of firepower in the squad.” Like when they took out the BAR from the squad level when the M1 was adopted... Or when they removed the automatic rifleman when the M16A1 was adopted and squad leaders had to pull M60s from the platoon down to the squad when in the field in Vietnam. And even if this is a correct assumption, those improvements are also true for the adversaries of the US, thus negating that advantage and presenting a new disadvantage of having less firepower and personnel in the squad level and making them more susceptible to attrition.
@@alephkasai9384 well the german army uses 2 different types of infantry. the light infantry called Jäger with 10man squads in the platoons, wich are operating on foot or mounted on Boxer APC and the heavy infantry called Panzergrenadiere, 6 man per squad, operating mounted in the Puma IFV in cooperation with the MBT´s. this has worked for a few decades now.
@@alephkasai9384 bigger. And even if they’re evenly split into two vehicles it’s okay. It means you won’t loose a full squad if one vehicle is taken out before they can dismount. With the current squad size you have to split the squads into bradleys in a way where you’ll always have some vehicles with soldiers from different squads.
I served 5yrs Army 11B. In Korea I worked as a M2 IFV driver and then turned gunner. I loved EVERY BIT. Hated being a dismount in back. Not room enough for kitted out Squad at BEST 6 personnel with gear and parts/ammo for the Bradley
"I loved EVERY BIT. (...) Not room enough for kitted out Squad (...)" What's more important for armoured warfare, having a handful auto-cannons and TOW missiles around or a screen of _dozens of infantrymen_ that can hold ground, take positions and do recon ?
I thought of "Pentagon Wars" as soon as this video stated this was the third attempt to replace the Bradley. I am not a fan of the 50mm. It may sound great but rate of fire, turret slew rate, ammo storage etc. 40mm is a good size for support fire and anti-aircraft fire....OK Sgt. York programme should the 37mm was probably better.... It seems that this vehicle i to be an IFV but does it really need to be sized for taking out tanks or pretend to be a light tank, all of which lead to the Bradley fiasco.
interesting point, its not 100% definitely going to be a 50mm version. I think they want 50 because if they hear Russia has 50mm IFV they don't want to not have the same max effective range although I doubt armored vehicles will be engaging past 1000 meters. how often do you have over 1000 meters line of sight before a hill or something blocks your view? The desert is pretty much the only exception to that rule
@@Taskandpurpose 57mm, not 50mm. For some reason it is Russia that still keeps using British calibers, while the West adopted German multiple of 10 metric after the WW2
"(...) does it really need to be sized for taking out tanks (...)" The only task any APC has is to *taxi infantry through mortar and small arms fire* , so that they can be deployed safely and *protect the flanks of advancing armor* and subsequently hold positions against counter-attacks. It's *WW II 'manouvre warfare'* , not 'rocket science'.
@11:05 Thought He Said "Out To 4 Thousand Years and Beyond!' - Im Like - We Win!👍 This Gentlemen is Very Intelligent and Way Humorous Via' The Best Arm Chair Engineer Therapy 🇺🇸
Because as it turns of anti tank rockets are pretty common now a days and having paper thin armor is basically trapping your troops inside a death trap
@@carso1500 Really unless in a hazmat zone or artillery fire, they should have open hatches where they can shoot back or ride on top. Where they can quickly escape the vehicle.
The navy suffered a similar hard lesson when they tried to adopt the ERGM rounds for their 5" naval guns. They did it too early and the rounds turned out to be as expensive as missiles and far less reliable than missiles.
What ever happened to the Striker? I though that would have been the replacement for the M3 Bradley. Also as someone who loves the Bradley and all its variants it makes me sad to see it go soon but times is changing no longer will I hear the sounds of a 25 Mike Mike. Thank you for your service.
Disagree my friend, I always apologized to my soldiers if I had them standing at the motor pool waiting on my Ranger ass. Not all officers fit your model of operation brother. Enjoy your videos keep up the good work!
So you're telling me that the upcoming IFV will weigh 54 tons. _8-10 tons more than the T-72/T-90 MBT series & about the same weight as the French MBT Leclerc which has a 120mm autoloader?_ *And I used to think those memes about everything American being obese were just jokes!*
the old version of the prototype IFV was 54 tons by the time it cancelled yes. I should have been more clear, the new version will not weigh that much - that was the old cancelled program called the "ground combat vehicle" if you want to look it up more
The Russians also have a heavy IFV program. Modern artillery paired with drones acting as observers was proven to be a highly effective counter to mechanized formations in Ukraine. The medium-term fix is to build a heavier, better-armored vehicle for those formations.
hmm... I see the border use of robotic in armours in the near future. Should there is a conflict between the USA and the People's Republic, we will see some revolutionary high-tech stuff on both ends.
"I see the border use of robotic in armours in the near future." Networked and algorithm enhanced 'remote control' is maturing and will be coming on land, sea and in the air - although for much smaller vehicles to operate in 'swarms' around manned assets.
The two vehicles are solving the same problem. Older IFVs just don't stand up very well to artillery fire, which is a real problem when every major power is using drones as spotters these days.
@@Morrigi192 The armour should be bolt on, easy to remove. There should be amphibious capability. For all we know there could be another Vietnam style war around the corner.
The ballistics seem pretty good for what it is, but the wider cartridge doesn't quite stack properly in the 556 mags. I think they'll ultimately need to create new lowers to accommodate special made wider magazines... otherwise you end up with magazines the size of a 30-round 556 magazine, that will only fit about 20 - 22 rounds of 6mm.
@@beowulf9878 i think grendel mags kind of have the same problem. You're kind of limited with mag width by the m16/m4 mag well which is designed around 556.
The movie "Pentagon Wars" was a very good movie. If you haven't seen it, you should. It shows exactly how/why defense projects take years longer than estimated and accrue massive cost overruns with comedic flare.
Even so, the bradley is pretty competitive when compare with their russian counterparts. Except maybe to the BMP3 or the new armata IFV line, but there are not many of those.
"the bradley is pretty competitive when compare with their russian counterparts." Complete nonsense. The only part of the Bradley that can compete with the BMP-3 is the TOW missile - everything else is worse and overpriced in direct comparison. If the Soviet Union would have needed more BMP-3 than the current 2000 units, it could have manufactured them - while the US can't field Bradley's _anywhere_ in the world with a comparable logistical cost or timeframe. The Bradley was a sink for public funding, compared to all other Western alternatives like the already existing German 'Marder', the British 'Warrior' or even the Belgian and Dutch M113 modernized variants by the same company which produced the 'Bradley': the AIFV-B or YPR-765. Military procurement isn't about 'stats' in any area - but _mass production_ and _maintainance_ for _minimum costs_ , prolonging service life with technological _upgrades_ . If the 'Bradley' were a substantial improvement to the M113 toward a proven tactical advantage, it wouldn't be replaced, already.
@@christophmahler I said that except for bmp3 and the new armata IFV line. But bmp 2 is of a similar level and bmp 1 is outdated compared to the bradley.
@@rubengdful The proper obervation would be that the M3 - for it's *billions of US dollar costs and decades of development* - _barely_ matches the Soviet BMP-2 in capability. That is not what can count as 'pretty competitive'...
Looking at the OMFV requirements. We're looking at Pentagon Wars Season 2. They want a medium caliber gun (Like the 50mm in the video), Capability to fire ATGMs, Protection and somehow the ability to chuck, at minimum, 6 troops in it, while setting a weight limit of a minimum of 2 of a C-17, roughly 30-35 tons max. If a 25mm cannon and ATGMs practically left no room for troops on a Bradley imagine it for the soldiery when it gets equipped with a 50mm and ATGMs. Then you'd be stuck on a tank with no autocannon for suppressive fire against relatively armored or enclosed targets, and even more limited ammunition. This is outside of the requirements for future sustainability and upgrades. Think it's better they make compromises with the requirements or convert something that already exists, because if the previous programs had anything to tell them with the number of contractors who stepped forward, they're asking for something currently not possible with the tech we have today. Can look at the requirements and other details here: fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45519.pdf
great additional info thanks for that! You bring up great points about not having room for troops after they've added everything requirement. They are thinking of converting the existing Puma or Lynx currently, with the contractors that are usual suspects General Dynamics , Lockheed etc
Unless the vehicle is *designed around it's **_main purpose_* : ferrying a sufficient number of infantrymen 'safely' into a tank battle - there won't be a point in funding it, _at all_ . Additional auto-cannons can be bolted on top of main battle tanks, but there's no point in rapid advancement if nobody comes along to hold the ground.
Welcome to Season 2 another year of Task & Gear! What do you all think of the possible M2 Bradley replacement?
Task & Purpose first
Just like all new weapons systems it needs to see combat first
Task & Purpose it’d be cool to see you compare it to the Ajax being brought in here in the UK.
I think the bradly should be replaced but not so much the striker this vechile could be a multi purpose vechile and make it electric
from what it looks like they won't be replacing the Stryker with it, I believe the military agrees with you there
50mm... I too am a fan of sticking naval guns on vehicles. I'm hoping they move on to a 6 barrel 120mm smoothbore chain gun.
lets stop playing games, quit beating around the bush and just pop a railgun on that puppy.
@@Taskandpurpose VroomVroom BOOM
@@Taskandpurpose But batteries. You can't trust them to bring them
Don't worry, Gundam got you covered
gundam.fandom.com/wiki/MS-06K_Zaku_Cannon_(Gatling_Gun_Equipment_Type)
Shoulder mounted 6 barrel 120mm Gattling Gun. ☺
Didn’t the later Panzer 3s have 50mm cannons?
Circa 1972, Ft. Carson on a 10 day field maneuver, lack of a shower, eating C-rations, no music, no beer and most of all....sleep deprived.
As long as i had a place to sit while the vehicle was motoring along, I was not too concerned. With the APC full of grunts, shoulder-to-shoulder,
it helped me stay upright in my seat while I tried to snooze. In Vietnam, they rode on top of the APC quite a lot, to stay safer from IEDs.
When I was in the Ft. Ord hospital, there was a dude in the bed next to mine, who was wounded while riding inside an APC in Nam, by an RPG
(rocket propelled grenade}, which burned his right arm, shoulder and side of his torso. Aluminum did not stop the RPG.
I worked FCS program. The Army would not stop adding requirements! It was like PISSING in a moving urinal!
hahhaa oh man, I love that expression I've never heard it before! but it pretty much sums up my military career
i’m using this analogy now
Love the analogy . The issue is responsibility . Who added these requirements and why. If not a good answer instant retirement . If you can hire you can fire. Poor personnel choices are just that . Fire then replace . Works in private enterprise. Why not military where these decision makers are General Staff anyway. Too many Generals.
With all the uniform changes the Navy makes I figure the pentagon is full of senior desk jockeys trying to leave their mark anywhere. So they can point at it and say "see honey, that was my idea". Only to be changed by the next desk rider in the night.
@@JinKee Damn was thinking about that too.
..."Double 'V' shaped hull..."
Wait...that's called a 'W' guys...(LOL)
Well, if you want to get technical; a W is not two V's is actually two U's, hence the name double-u.
@@SM-zz4gx vv w
@@SM-zz4gx uu
@@richardlooch2109 except for the vast majority of time that our alphabet existed the double-u was written with rounded swoops images.app.goo.gl/NFhUtx8MzoJEgTuX8 . The straighter lines you see today are a very recent alteration and far from universal.
Theres a reason a W is called a Double-u, not a Double-v.
@@SM-zz4gx did not know that thx.
The green tank shown next to him is actually the PUMA, the german army's IFV which is in introduction since 2015
yes that's the vehicle they DoD is closest to considering acquiring for the OMFV program !
Sonderkraftfahrzeug 234/2 puma > Schützenpanzer puma
Puma? Oh yes i thought it was a Marder
They should literally just buy the Puma.
Ian Pederson too small, light and convenient for them.
10:48 That's a gatling gun, not a chaingun.
A chaingun has one barrel, and resembles that of regular cannons. And yes, they use a chain to drive the feed mechanism.
yes you're right good catch it's hard for me to find supporting footage that I have the rights too so sometimes I stretch and make a mistake . wont happen again thanks!
@@Taskandpurpose Hey no problem, you make good content :)
Rotary cannon is a more accurate term.
@@Riceball01 I can agree with that
No...its called a spinny spinny shooty bang bang.
"Stuck with for the next 50 years"
Laughs in B-52
Or M2 and of course the bayonet. When's the last time they updated the bayonet--the Civil War?
@@orlock20 Don't tempt them! They might actually try!
The B-52 is actually really awesome. They keep finding more and more uses for it.
Here’s info on how they’re planning on using it as a stand-off missile truck:
www.historynet.com/boeing-b-52-stratosaurus.htm
@@combativeThinker it's one of the most amazing pieces of technology ever created! And it was designed over the course of a weekend!
@@orlock20 m 9 bayonet was in the 90s. A US knife bayonet inspired by the AK bayonets. The Marines got one in the 2000s based on a Marine Combat Knife. ( Kabar is only one of the contractors, mine is an Ontario). I think one of the best was a 1909 Bolo. Machete type bayonet.
Glad to see you are getting sponsors for things like the Purdue Cyber program. The industry needs more Veterans with the optimal mindset and good skills.
I hope doesn’t just end up being a massive target for Aircraft.
thats something a lot of people are pointing out, bigger the target for drones now days
That won't matter America only fights 4th or 3rd world countries
Well, if Puma and Lynx (both KMW) are the favorites, you actually know the size of the vehicle today.
Choosing a different caliber/gun might influence the turret's size but that doesn't change the vehicle's size much.
Also you can't hide from aircraft behind terrain (hills etc.) anyways and a vehicle even the size of a Humvee will be seen/detected far beyond weapons range.
That air-burst-munition (starting with the current 30mm) also is meant to be used against flying vehicles, basically turning this into FlaK for the MBTs it accompanies, that can't be shrunk anyways.
50mm might make sense especially with this in mind, if it increases range and the amount of shrapnel used against drones and helicopters.
@@Jamypugs Or second -- Iraq, twice. We were an hour away from rolling towards Belgrade when Milosevic tapped out. ISIS rolled into Iraq ballin', new _everything_, and capturing near-peer-gear in such quantities that Shi'ite analysts looked at the images and concluded that they were a front for the USA's hating-them-for-their-freedom, heading for Iran. Speaking of Iran, they're about to get all that good PRC colony gear. The "4th world" -- the bottom of the Third, as only three are established in standard usage -- pretty sure drones are gonna be the answer there forevermore, for better or worse or less worse. Oh, speaking of drones, Iranian proxies are doing very interesting things with them, let's hope TAPs can do something against the small ones. Maybe this is why AAA chaingun moad is desirable. Oh, and don't forget that IED-deflecting wedge-shaped nut cup.
` This is not to say, however, that I believe the conventional side of "near-peer warfare" isn't being overemphasized across-the-board. The DOD/USMC/Army seems to be doing what they did after Viet Nam -- "Well, that was a whole lot of suck. Clearly, they won't make us do _that_ again, so we can safely focus on easier-to-explain-on-TV warfare."
Aircraft? No... drones with 100 gallons of fuel & an artillery shell IED as a guided Mega Molotov... yes it’s begging for that
"capable" of holding 9 soldiers. Capable is a strong word
Yes but can the chain gun be detached? In the event that it needs to be... oh I don’t know... humped through the jungle by an ex-wrestler to take out guerrillas/predators.
Of course! When the wrestler needs to protect his family from stealth hawks.
Payback time!
@@azulisxanderholm3948
Someone say something about a tyrannosaurus?
Asking the important questions
A 50 cal, Ma Duce?
I think those chain guns are on Tank like vehicles too.
No wonder you rode in the back - the M913 is a “chain gun” not a Gatling-type like the video shows. All you ground pounders are the same but keep pumping out the videos - they’re great!!! Thanks!
I loved THE PENTAGON WARS. Great movie
I'm probably going to rewatch it tonight now that I'm thinking about it again haha
ua-cam.com/video/ir0FAa8P2MU/v-deo.html
@TheCrazyKid1381 shut
It's standard viewing for all our new Bradley crews. Makes them think twice about not learning how to shoot first.
Great movie
But absolutely 100% misinformation, especially when you realize who our main character is (a reformer)
And oh god the book...
This sure dates me. When I was in OCS at Ft Benning in 1977, I remember classes on the "new" Bradley fighting vehicle slated to replace the M113 family of APC's.
-War- _procurement never changes_ ...
Australia is in the process of evaluatiing final 2 in its IFV selection (Rhinemetal Lynx and Hanwha Redback 21) they carry 8 man squad 30mm main gun 2 Spike ER missiles and anti missile systems. They have also been designed to upgrade gun to 40/50mm.
Lynx is an awesome choice. Cheaper and easier to maintain than the Puma. It also has mostly proven "of the shelf" solutions all across the design. Puma does not seem to have a +40t heaviest version finished. Do Australia procures Boxer 8x8 as well? I've seen it running - what a sound. It looks better even compared to Patria AMV XP.
Your Hawkey, is it made with a metric or imperial standard?
@@HanSolo__ A really good IFV but unfortunately Lynx only carries 6 troops in the back which is why it didn't meet our standard of 8 troops. Yes we also picked the boxer as our Cavalry Recon Vehicle again with 30mm and same AT missile. Yes Hawkeye is Metric, Australia works in the Metric system.
@@mylesdobinson1534 Thaks for your answer. As far as I remember Rheinmetall claimed Lynx to take up to 9 soldiers. I guess it depends on the amount of the stuff soldiers will take with them and if separate (those anti-mine type as a safety feature) seats are fitted there, it can be too tight for more than 6 - as you said.
Hawkei is an awesome vehicle. I saw it in Poland at the Kiece EXPO few years ago.
@@mylesdobinson1534 Okay. They have a place for 6 guys in Lynx KF31, 8 in KF41 and 9 in no turret variant.
@@HanSolo__ sorry
My bad I meant 6 in Puma, yes we are trialling the Lynx 41 for 8 troops.
Need to remember one thing though, the bigger the Gun, means bigger harder hitting Rounds but it also means you carry less rounds. Its a balance thing, you may need a 50mm Gun to penetrate some Armour but its a overkill for Infantry in the open or thin skinned Vehicles where a greater quantity of Smaller Rounds is better.
it may strike a balance between sub-30mm autocannon intended for infantry, light vehicles & thin walls, and the 120mm cannon for tank killing
50mm gun may be able to handle fortifications in situations that a 120mm could cause too much collateral damage (for example, in urban warfare)
"It needs port holes!"
*10 years later* "Port holes? What is this, the navy?"
I’m just a normal civilian and wasn’t even into military tech until I started watching your videos. Now I’ve watched all your videos and support you. Keep it up guys.
Congress: _Oh your approaching me?_
The army: _I can't give you a new Bradley replacement idea without getting closer_
ROADROLLER!!!!!!!
*you're
I mean, if they want a 40mm, us Swedes have been using one for decades with the CV90. With Bofors 3P programmable rounds it can engage any thin skin target, from ground targets to missiles and jet aircraft, as well as infantry behind solid cover via airburst, or targets in a building through a delayed fuse. And if you desperately want something bigger, it also comes in a 57mm flavor.
They tested the 40mm a lot as we use it on the C130 gunship. They found the 35/50mm is more effective. It makes sense as the SuperShot 50 gives you a larger warhead. 40mm is still good
@@smithnwesson990 No 40mm is more effective then 35mm(on ground vehicles I have no background from the air force) , however , US had large stockpiles of 35mm ammo , so it was a easy choice to pick from an economic standpoint (Norway did the same recently). The main selling argument is probebly that the 40mm have been used for decades now for what they now want the 50mm system to do , so no need to invent the wheel again. But it comes down to - do you want more ammo with you in the field using 40mm or do you want more effect on target with less ammo ?
No matter what system they pick , I can gladly inform you that programable rounds are the future , as in you can make new rounds with the characteristics you need in the future you didnt know you needed when you first bought the system , so growth is no problem for the gun system , assuming the caliber they chose is 40mm or more.
My thoughts to. BAE/Hägglunds prob could spec a CV90 for the US Army
I love my 57mm. But since it's murica, why not bring back the 120mm automatic Bofors?
As crazy technical and complex as these vehicles are becoming, I think it's important that they have manual overrides in case of electrical or sensor failures. A human driver will always be able to operate as long as they aren't incapacitated, but self-driving vehicles have many more things that could go wrong and disrupt their functioning.
You may not be wrong but part of the reason military electronics cost so much is because of the build quality and software verification. Basically the same reasons avionics are so expensive
OMG... Just go for some fancy mix of CV90/40, Lynx KF41, and Heer' Puma and you got it done.
Singapore already have the Bionix in service and now they have Hunter AFVs. The requirements include 9 passengers so the Puma needs extra seats.
I served in KESK (KAMPESKADRONEN) Norwegian mechanised infantry unit, in 2017.
We used CV90 which is so far superior to your Bradly. We where 9 infantrymen in the cv90, a gunner, a driver and a commander. 12 total.
Anyways, I don't understand why the US wants to create new IFV when we have existing alternatives in NATO.
I can't imagine splitting your squad, what made the mechanised infantry effective is that we can dismount on top of a objective having the co-axial machine gun and 30mm auto cannon pouring down the trenches as we disembark an entire unit into their position.
We used half the amount of resources and co-ordination for the same objective as a squad in 2 bradlys.
Anyways, great video.
Far Superior is a relative term. Both are dead from an anti tank missile or well placed RPG. Think the point was it wasn't worth buying new IFVs for a little more capability. Now getting an IFV with a 50mm and Double V hull is actually a a good enough leap. Not to mention the US military is big meaning they can't just buy a few vehicles like smaller nations
@@smithnwesson990 We add armour and active defence systems to repel rpg's and anti tank missiles.
Our additional armour, makes us capable of (idk but I think its off) surviving a direct hit from an RPG to the rear and the sides. But I've yet to see all the additional armour deployed as its shortens the service life of the vehicle.
But, our targeting systems, 40mm auto cannon and wast array of weapon systems mounted on the RWS allows us to deploy in a wide variety of roles. As an Tank Destroyer, IFV, Close fire support (120-200mm mortar) etc.
There are many advantages to the CV90 platform but the strongest argument is the shared targeting information across, troops, companies and battalions. It allows us to co-ordinate at a much higher level.
I might be biased as the only 3 IFV I've had any experience with is CV90, BRADLY and BMP 3.
I've only served in the cv90, but talked to crews of both the BMP and Bradly.
@@smithnwesson990 after you put on a hard kill system RPGs and ATGMs won't be as effective.
Splitting the Squad up isn't that bad, because each Brad can fit 7 dismounts (there's a seat in the hellhole, right behind the driver, for the squads smallest guy). Though maybe I've been mechanized for too long, and small shit shows no longer register as shit shows to me.
I can say damn near everyone who has experienced a Bradley (minus a few gearheads and nerds) would rather walk instead of sit in one, or be a crewman for one, they're unreliable, uncomfortable, I personally despise them and couldn't imagine having to place my life in the hands of a Bradley.
The cv90 is really only far superior on paper. The Bradley system - which is the vehicle, all its upgrades up to the current moment, the US logistics backing, and the doctrine that goes along with it - is still the most effective IFV _system_ out there.
Most of the small and not sexy Tech - sensors, APU, reactive armor, internal wiring and safety mechanisms and so on - are better than the cv90. Admittedly it's not because the swedes couldn't make a good vehicle, it's because they don't have the money to spend
69th requirement was that the AMFM radio doesn't turn off during starting the engine like in cars.
Thats important as fuck.
Could you imagine having a member of the squad to have a controller to control it, even program it to move using grid cordinates. Having it bound with the squad in a combat situation, having that cannon right there. Badass. Two of the Military's favorite terms applies here, force multiplier and fire superiority.
The Swedish army has the CRV-90 armed with a rapid 40 mm that you can slap on radar and then turn it into a AS unit.
For starters, original gun in CV-90 is famous Bofors 40mm ANTI-AIRCRAFT gun :D
BAE also is trying to peddle an updated version. Hybrid powerpack, optionally manned etc.
I used to work on the TOW missile system on the Bradley. Best job I ever had!
I have been meaning to ask your opinion of “The Pentagon Wars” for a while now.
Love the channel. Keep it up.
Still waiting on that Marines/Army squad organization video.
Stay safe, Lawn Guy Land. 😏
funny you mention that I was literally just thinking about that Marines / Army squad comparison video ! I did get a lot of responses that people would be interested in that. I'm going to have it released by the end of the month is my hope!
So, in reality, the main character was the bad guy and the Army was the good guy
Just wanted to say great job with the channel guys! Super informative for miltech nerds who wouldn't otherwise get the practical perspective and opinions from an actual vet who has experience with a lot of these systems. I've always been interested in the space just to see how we're doing compared to societies in sci-fi universes from books/movies/games. I mean let's get these rail guns, point defense lasers, and exo-suits deployed already, amirite?
I think you've also struck a great tone and style for the channel - I'm genuinely cracking up at the meme references and self-deprecating humor. On point and then right back to interesting info, distilled from actually diving into these reports, and having used the equipment. Anyways I'm sure a lot of these were intentional decisions on your part, just wanted to say well done, and thanks for putting these together!
Thank you to all you Bradley gunners who shot at the Brandly Range in the Graffenwhor Training Area from 91 through 93. My barracks were only a few hundred meters from the entrance and yall rocked me to sleep almost every night
I was born in 93, you’re welcome
That cancelled ground combat vehicle with 84 tons seems a lot like what happened with the Porsche tiger prototype hulls being turned into ferdinands in world war 2. The the brass ignored the MASSIVE failure that was the transmission (which was VERY VERY VERY prone to failure) and kept adding other things on instead
Thank god. Industry usually knows whats best because they dont care about bureaucracy, they care about cost and effectiveness.
Uhhh no they care about making money.
@Lost 화살 yes, which is why having low cost and high effectiveness is the most likely product to make them more money.
@@MrJH101 effectiveness has nothing to do with making money. Its more like exaggerate costs and overwork grunts so that the people running the contractor company who actually do nothing can enjoy their fat paycheck.
Right, that’s why the Army wants ineffective crap on purpose, fOr tHe PaYcHeCk. Not like there’s long tests with multiple designs and the one that’s decently priced and effective is the one they ideally want.
@@MrJH101 What the army wants and what the contractor wants are two completely different things.
I remember when the Bradley was new and the best thing since sliced bread in the 80s. It did quite well in Desert Storm.
My favorite person. What’s up.
you know, just trying to stay hydrated. how about you whats good?
KEY reason in the military we DO what the rest of society won't/doesn't, is discipline! Plain and simple!
In a recent interview with TFB the army said the NGSW would be implimented more as a compliment to current weapons rather than a full replacement.
In engineering we use decision matrices to determine what the most important features are. You start off designing a system with as much as you can, but you always have to make sacrifices and knowing how everything compares helps you make informed decisions.
Maybe the Army should let actual engineers make most of the decisions.
Chris here is really roasting the Army. That's what I call Big Cappy Energy!
53tons? They just hollowed out an MBT and called it an ICV
This channel is great. You've got a good variety of topics, good sense of humor, and your analysis is deeper than many other channels. Keep it up.
thanks that's exactly what I'm aiming for I'm glad you dig it! the words of encouragement are much appreciated
The Army went with Bradley because it knew that Congress wouldn't approve the array of vehicles which were actually needed, ie a light, wheeled infantry fighting vehicle like LAV; a light tracked, amphibious cavalry vehicle, and a heavily armored IFV to operate with tanks. So a committee designed Bradley, which was never really amphibious. But finally we did get Stryker, the LAV APC/IFV variant.
An Abrams-based HAIFV capable of carrying a full squad would be big and expensive, but it's what armored brigades need.
The Bradley did not go the direction it did because of Congress, it did so because of the military's bureaucracy. Watch Pentagon Wars, it gives a good summary of the making of the Bradley.
Billy The Bradley was a very successful vehicle. It saved countless of lives and destroyed a shit ton of vehicles and fucked over the enemies.
Except the Striker isn't light.
@@jeffreyroot7346 All Stryker variants weigh less than Bradley IFV versions.
@@blastulae of course they do, but significantly more than both M113 vehicle and their unused cavalry variants, most importantly too heavy for deployment by c130.
The funny thing is that the UCP patter legitimately works what screws it up is the color
yes very true, this month I have a video coming out that goes in depth on the digital camo pattern aka the 70's "dual pattern" controversy
I was sooo frustrated when our forces started hitting IEDs. It was like they didn't know what to do.
In Rhodesia back in the 70s had the same problem and solved it with V shaped bottoms made in Sweden. As usual we don't learn from the past and have to Americanize everything. Your right with 200 requirements by desk jocky REMFs.
"(...) Rhodesia back in the 70s had the same problem (...)"
Somewhat off topic, but actually studying the 'bush wars' by South Africa would have prevented the 'Bradley' pyramid scheme and would have given the US Army and Marine Corps a rapid deployment force of _motorized_ infantry units, capable to accompany tanks in most climates.
No one in internet have such charisma and ability to speak about serious issues your interesting, funny and fact backed way as you. Greetings from Serbia. Great job. Your every vid is literally best on chosen theme.
Someone needs to post the Pentagon Wars clip on the Bradley's development if they haven't already.
You mean that satirical movie that exaggerates issues with the Bradley?
The movie that was based off a book made by a person who despises technology to the point he says a M48 is more survivable than a M1 Abrams?
The guy who’s programs consisted of stuffing ships, planes and vehicles to the brim and then shoot them with weaponry that they were never meant to handle?
Yah go ahead, the movie was fun and hilarious
Fantastic commentary, your obviously researching every system.
doing my best to research each program / its history / etc thanks!
The Army wants a BMP
Someone finally said it.
Thank god someone said it. Give this guy a raise.
@eLKy 15 its the Russian infantry fighting vehicle they've used for decades
So they also want an IFV that can swim?
not if it wants it's crews to survive, BMP protection is awful
was not expecting to see General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, VC, KCB, DSO. The quintessential top brass.
I'm Swedish so I'm of course Biased but i really thought that the CV90(Combat Vehicle 90) would replace the Bradley.
I've only trained with that vehicle but we put it through some harsh terrain and treatment, without issues. I've also heard that the ISAF forces were satisfied with it down it the punishing deserts of Afghanistan.
I served in Afghanistan along side the CV90. They're so cool and bad ass and super tough I dont recall one ever breaking down. Great vehicle and I would love for the US to adopt the vehicle.
I was there when they blew up the Swedish soldier 😵 - not well protected against iEDs
@@d.o.g573 You sure it wasn't the BAE Systems RG32M that got hit by an IED, wounding several Swedes in Afghanistan?
OK this is my third video with Task & Purpose, excellent information.
Become one in the happy chaps in the cv90 family
Seeing Mech get some love is like handing Dobby a sock. Heartwarming
Love your vids keep up the great work
thank you for watching I'm glad some people dig it, it means a lot!
8:31 that plexiglass site is the most awesome thing I have ever seen.
What´s about those Puma and Lynx images? Did you just put them in the video because their also infantry fighting vehicles or why I don´t see a real reason
I put those in because the DoD is currently leaning heavily towards acquiring the puma or lynx and adapting it to fit their criteria
@@Taskandpurpose that makes sense thanks for the comment didn't know that yet
Namer from Israel 🇮🇱
Task & Purpose as far as I know the Lynx has been excluded from the program
@@borkwoof696 because its german... politics are a problem at that point because the lynx is a great ifv
you have grown a lot with the channel, good to see. high info density as well. good good
I keep trying to improve the videos based on the audience feedback , doing my best! thanks for the words of encouragement
@@Taskandpurpose ive been critical of you as well. so my compliment is honest, is all i am saying.
Here in Israel they just stripped the main battle tank of the turret and ammo, freeing up space for infantry. Much better for logistics to have the same platform
Except it weighs 60 tones. You negate any logistical gains your have by having pets commonality by losing the ability to transport it anywhere rapidly.
@@kolinmartz
"(...) losing the ability to transport it anywhere rapidly"
In general - and for a maritime power, especially - indeed.
In the geographical context of Eretz Israel, however 'mobility' means 'pressing the gas pedal until one reaches the border in 120 minutes'.
Any border, that is...
@@christophmahler nobody here was talking about mobility. We’re both talking about logistics.
@@kolinmartz
"(...) nobody here was talking about mobility."
I am.
Take a look at the Merkavah and how it was deployed in _stationary defense positions_ , standing off advancing Arab armour.
One can _walk_ from one border of the country to the opposite border - in _a day_ .
Mobility isn't a requirement - neither is overstretching of supply lines a probability.
That's why main battle tank conversions to APCs are popular in Israel.
@@christophmahler Is the T-72 the mbt of Israel? If so, what are they gonna do about that reverse speed? Also, isn't that tank a bit too low silhouette to act as an IFV, especially if the turret came off?
My Mech platoon was equipped with M113s and the big discussion/ debate at the was over whether to go the Dragoon or Hussar route. The Dragoon concept, was that the APC transported the infantry to the battlefield where they dismounted and attacked the objective on foot with the APCs providing covering fire with their M2HBs. The Hussar concept called for the infantry to fight from the APC all the way to the objective and only dismount to secure it. Neither side really won and the result was the Bradly. Which effectively is a light tank that can carry too few infantry. And because the Army asked the Air Force the wrong question was less then an inch two wide for transport in a C130. Seems that the Army still has not derided between the Dragoon or Hussar.
Good presentation!
Seems with the growing use of drones it will need improved anti-air capabilities, but hopefully that will be just a part of the new weapon and fire control system.
Nice visual nod to the excellent Blackadder Goes Forth
I think modularity can be a great thing, it can safe cost and space ... for example the german/dutch boxer has different mission moduls like medevac, command or ifv so you need one vehicle and can switch between the diffrent roles instead of having three different vehicles, also you can adapt and build new future moduls for new roles
10:56 is a Gatling gun, not a Chain gun. Chain gins and Gatling guns are totally different, despite video games often mixing them up.
I didn’t know there was season I just thought I was some army guy ranting about how upset he is about not eating crayons
the crayons finally came in the mail I'm satisfied now
@@Taskandpurpose My marine friends keep arguing weather orange or purple crayons are better. I'm a lowly civvy so eating crayons is above me.
Marines only eat read or green crayons. Marine officers eat the gold ones.
0:44)9 TROOPS = 3 Squadrons = 1 REGIMENT = about 1,215 men.
2:01) 20mm = 0.78 inch. 50mm = 1.99 inches.
3.12)I was with a Land Engineer Company, 20th Battalion, 18th Combat Engineer Brigade.The D7E Caterpillars we used had rounded belly plates. A mine was exploded under one.A track was broken and a big dent put in the plate.The operator walked away with bleeding ears.
11:07)4Km = 2.4858 miles.
12:21)I was in Company C, 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (First of the First). I was in the 1st platoon's 3rd Squad. I operated ( M 113) C13. I was assigned to the job because of my D7E experience.Track commanders (TC) & track operators ( TO) were attached to a rifle squad, but didn't deploy with them. TCs manned the .50 cal. HMG. TOs were also radio men.
Why are we upgrading to 50mm rounds and cannons when we already have 40mm rounds being made for the Bofors cannons on Ac-130's? Our grandfathers used Bofors cannons to shoot down planes. Putting one in a Bradley will save more money.
Cuz Russians are going for 57mm...
Exactly.. and the 57mm is in remote controlled modular mounting system that can be put on various platforms including boats..
CV9040 and CV9030 are already among the best IFVs and use 40/40mm to good effect with lots of interesting ammo choices now and in development.
50mm rounds mean way less ammo to be carried.
@@olaruud9366 Yup. I know the value of some points in 40mm over those in 30mm. But a single round of 40 takes as much space as 3 rounds of 30mm. With 30mm top ammo capable of 90% tasks the 40mm does, for 1/2 of the price. Now compare this to 50mm which starts to look like tank/cannon ammo. Russian 57mm - well it is actually a cannon ammo. How much of these you can carry? 100? It makes 6 or maybe 7 bursts from the chain autocannon.
@@arvedludwig3584 Thats right.
Edit: I think any 50mm or 57mm IFV/APC could be reasonable introduced as one vehicle per platoon (3-4 per company, tactics depending).
Also, with a 50/57 gun you gonna need a roof/hatch mounted 14,5mm for commander. Which on the field will eventualy become the most used weapon. Because "hey we have only 25 HE, 50 APFS, 25 HEAT - $500 each!"
The Bradley came into service in the 80s and been around through two wars. And countless deployments and successes in all of them ,so really they did not fail. I became an 11M In 1990 fort Benning Georgia, later we dropped they 11M and just where 11B. Same shit
Quick question, why do you keep showing the Namer IFV? I know it's heavy, but it's an MBT turned into an APC. Of course it's heavy.
oh well they are to be used alongside MBTs
Should just have upgraded the good old M113 Gavin 😎
Thanks for posting!
Here's an interim solution for the Bradley;
Take the turret off of the Bradley and put an electrically driven commander's cupola on it with a new .50 Caliber (the quick-change barrel version) and a BUNCH of smoke dischargers on it. Use the weight and space gained from taking the original turret off to add some armor and allow an 8-man squad to be carried. Call it an uparmored APC and leave it the hell ALONE from there.
"Use the weight and space gained from taking the original turret off to add some armor and allow an 8-man squad to be carried."
Agreed.
Saving billions from developing another 'IFV' could be invested in larger tank platoons or additional tank attachments in mechanized brigades - providing the actual armour and fire support, infantry requires.
I am a retired infantryman or 11 bravo and i was also an 11 hotel mechanized infantry and 19 delta scout. the M2 BRADLEY was not used by the infantry in the 1990's but the M113 and M901 which we used at FORT IRWIN and currently both were replaced by the STRYKER. The M2 BRADLEY is used by 19 delta cavalry scouts in the 2000's to present. I am a cold war and gulf wars veteran.
While I’m a big fan of having a vehicle that can finally carry the whole squad of 9 people...... maybe we should rethink the squads. All jokes aside, several discontinuities since 1946, 74 years ago, necessitates the rethinking of the legacy 9 man squad. The improvements in the accuracy of fires, targeting, and reconnaissance systems used by peer and near peer adversaries of the US necessitates in future engagements the use of the squad as the smallest primary unit for fire and maneuver instead of the platoon in the battle space. Another discontinuity is the increase growth of urbanization and how it will affect attrition of personnel. Engagements against a conventional adversary in urban terrain will incur higher attrition levels than what the US has faced in recent decades against insurgents or non-peer conventional forces. Another one of the biggest reasons they cited as to why they decreased the size of the squad was the fact that 9-10 people is the optimal number to be effectively controlled by conscripted NCOs and replacement conscripts will find it easier to integrate with a smaller squad. However we haven’t had conscripts since 1973, 47 years ago and currently the general US population is more tech savvy and trainable if we are faced with a mass mobilization scenario. They also made the incorrect assumption they’ve always made that “current and future weapons development will increase individual firepower and compensate for the lack of firepower in the squad.” Like when they took out the BAR from the squad level when the M1 was adopted... Or when they removed the automatic rifleman when the M16A1 was adopted and squad leaders had to pull M60s from the platoon down to the squad when in the field in Vietnam. And even if this is a correct assumption, those improvements are also true for the adversaries of the US, thus negating that advantage and presenting a new disadvantage of having less firepower and personnel in the squad level and making them more susceptible to attrition.
So are you saying squad sizes should be bigger or smaller?
@@alephkasai9384 well the german army uses 2 different types of infantry.
the light infantry called Jäger with 10man squads in the platoons, wich are operating on foot or mounted on Boxer APC
and the heavy infantry called Panzergrenadiere, 6 man per squad, operating mounted in the Puma IFV in cooperation with the MBT´s.
this has worked for a few decades now.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 That's really interesting, thank you!
@@alephkasai9384 bigger. And even if they’re evenly split into two vehicles it’s okay. It means you won’t loose a full squad if one vehicle is taken out before they can dismount. With the current squad size you have to split the squads into bradleys in a way where you’ll always have some vehicles with soldiers from different squads.
I served 5yrs Army 11B. In Korea I worked as a M2 IFV driver and then turned gunner.
I loved EVERY BIT. Hated being a dismount in back. Not room enough for kitted out Squad at BEST 6 personnel with gear and parts/ammo for the Bradley
"I loved EVERY BIT. (...) Not room enough for kitted out Squad (...)"
What's more important for armoured warfare, having a handful auto-cannons and TOW missiles around or a screen of _dozens of infantrymen_ that can hold ground, take positions and do recon ?
I thought of "Pentagon Wars" as soon as this video stated this was the third attempt to replace the Bradley.
I am not a fan of the 50mm. It may sound great but rate of fire, turret slew rate, ammo storage etc. 40mm is a good size for support fire and anti-aircraft fire....OK Sgt. York programme should the 37mm was probably better....
It seems that this vehicle i to be an IFV but does it really need to be sized for taking out tanks or pretend to be a light tank, all of which lead to the Bradley fiasco.
interesting point, its not 100% definitely going to be a 50mm version. I think they want 50 because if they hear Russia has 50mm IFV they don't want to not have the same max effective range although I doubt armored vehicles will be engaging past 1000 meters. how often do you have over 1000 meters line of sight before a hill or something blocks your view? The desert is pretty much the only exception to that rule
There are already two 40mm guns available, though, the Bofors and the Cased Telescoped one the Brits are mounting.
@@Taskandpurpose 57mm, not 50mm. For some reason it is Russia that still keeps using British calibers, while the West adopted German multiple of 10 metric after the WW2
The 50mm is a blown out 35x228mm case, so it's smaller than the 40x311 and 40x364 rounds. 40mm CTAS might be smaller, but not by much.
"(...) does it really need to be sized for taking out tanks (...)"
The only task any APC has is to *taxi infantry through mortar and small arms fire* , so that they can be deployed safely and *protect the flanks of advancing armor* and subsequently hold positions against counter-attacks.
It's *WW II 'manouvre warfare'* , not 'rocket science'.
Nice vid Campbell. No idea Bradley was that outdated.
A whole squad. ..taken out with one round ( a possibility)?!
That is why you dont sit inside under fire.
@11:05 Thought He Said "Out To 4 Thousand Years and Beyond!' - Im Like - We Win!👍 This Gentlemen is Very Intelligent and Way Humorous Via' The Best Arm Chair Engineer Therapy 🇺🇸
The way that they keep upgunning and upgrading armor to mechanized IFVs they're going to end up re-inventing the Merkava.
Because as it turns of anti tank rockets are pretty common now a days and having paper thin armor is basically trapping your troops inside a death trap
@@carso1500 Really unless in a hazmat zone or artillery fire, they should have open hatches where they can shoot back or ride on top. Where they can quickly escape the vehicle.
Which is meant specifically for Israel doctrine which is crew first, tank second.
I Love how you used the Puma to represent that vehicle lol
The navy suffered a similar hard lesson when they tried to adopt the ERGM rounds for their 5" naval guns. They did it too early and the rounds turned out to be as expensive as missiles and far less reliable than missiles.
What ever happened to the Striker? I though that would have been the replacement for the M3 Bradley. Also as someone who loves the Bradley and all its variants it makes me sad to see it go soon but times is changing no longer will I hear the sounds of a 25 Mike Mike. Thank you for your service.
Disagree my friend, I always apologized to my soldiers if I had them standing at the motor pool waiting on my Ranger ass. Not all officers fit your model of operation brother. Enjoy your videos keep up the good work!
I have ridden in the back of 2 1/2s, 5 tons, m577s, m548s etc. I retired before the newer rigs were deployed.
The US saw Kurganets with 57 mm autocanon turret and they wanted some...
Way to make me feel old. The Bradley joined the ARMY the year before I did. Gee thanks.
The pentagon wars never end do they lol
Ohhhhhh General Melchitt ! Well done Chris ! 👍🍻
So you're telling me that the upcoming IFV will weigh 54 tons. _8-10 tons more than the T-72/T-90 MBT series & about the same weight as the French MBT Leclerc which has a 120mm autoloader?_
*And I used to think those memes about everything American being obese were just jokes!*
the old version of the prototype IFV was 54 tons by the time it cancelled yes. I should have been more clear, the new version will not weigh that much - that was the old cancelled program called the "ground combat vehicle" if you want to look it up more
The Russians also have a heavy IFV program. Modern artillery paired with drones acting as observers was proven to be a highly effective counter to mechanized formations in Ukraine. The medium-term fix is to build a heavier, better-armored vehicle for those formations.
Might as well ride around in a stretched King Tiger.
In the United States you go big or go home.
Good to know what our military is buying, keep the videos coming sir
hmm... I see the border use of robotic in armours in the near future. Should there is a conflict between the USA and the People's Republic, we will see some revolutionary high-tech stuff on both ends.
"I see the border use of robotic in armours in the near future."
Networked and algorithm enhanced 'remote control' is maturing and will be coming on land, sea and in the air - although for much smaller vehicles to operate in 'swarms' around manned assets.
The bradley doesn't need replacing, it's already second to none
2:11 So the Army wants virtually an T-15 Armata Heavy IFV with 50mm autocannon on it, right?
The two vehicles are solving the same problem. Older IFVs just don't stand up very well to artillery fire, which is a real problem when every major power is using drones as spotters these days.
@@Morrigi192 The armour should be bolt on, easy to remove. There should be amphibious capability. For all we know there could be another Vietnam style war around the corner.
It's good that there is a Mechanized Infantry week, which, as Mr. Cappi says, is, basically, like Shark Week.
I thought “OMFV” was a joke for Oh My F*#kin Vehicle.
ah blast that was a great missed opportunity for one my lame jokes!
Okay, that wasn’t a strict never. Great Job!
Anything on the 6mm ARC that us peasants might not know?
SOCOM. Apparently nobody wants to hump a 7.62 up and down the mountains. In Afghanistan. With a combat load.
The ballistics seem pretty good for what it is, but the wider cartridge doesn't quite stack properly in the 556 mags. I think they'll ultimately need to create new lowers to accommodate special made wider magazines... otherwise you end up with magazines the size of a 30-round 556 magazine, that will only fit about 20 - 22 rounds of 6mm.
@@carlkinder8201 think they may use 6.5 Grendel mags if they end up using it.
@@beowulf9878 i think grendel mags kind of have the same problem. You're kind of limited with mag width by the m16/m4 mag well which is designed around 556.
The movie "Pentagon Wars" was a very good movie. If you haven't seen it, you should. It shows exactly how/why defense projects take years longer than estimated and accrue massive cost overruns with comedic flare.
Even so, the bradley is pretty competitive when compare with their russian counterparts. Except maybe to the BMP3 or the new armata IFV line, but there are not many of those.
"the bradley is pretty competitive when compare with their russian counterparts."
Complete nonsense.
The only part of the Bradley that can compete with the BMP-3 is the TOW missile - everything else is worse and overpriced in direct comparison.
If the Soviet Union would have needed more BMP-3 than the current 2000 units, it could have manufactured them - while the US can't field Bradley's _anywhere_ in the world with a comparable logistical cost or timeframe.
The Bradley was a sink for public funding, compared to all other Western alternatives like the already existing German 'Marder', the British 'Warrior' or even the Belgian and Dutch M113 modernized variants by the same company which produced the 'Bradley': the AIFV-B or YPR-765.
Military procurement isn't about 'stats' in any area - but _mass production_ and _maintainance_ for _minimum costs_ , prolonging service life with technological _upgrades_ .
If the 'Bradley' were a substantial improvement to the M113 toward a proven tactical advantage, it wouldn't be replaced, already.
@@christophmahler I said that except for bmp3 and the new armata IFV line. But bmp 2 is of a similar level and bmp 1 is outdated compared to the bradley.
@@rubengdful
The proper obervation would be that the M3 - for it's *billions of US dollar costs and decades of development* - _barely_ matches the Soviet BMP-2 in capability.
That is not what can count as 'pretty competitive'...
Looking at the OMFV requirements. We're looking at Pentagon Wars Season 2. They want a medium caliber gun (Like the 50mm in the video), Capability to fire ATGMs, Protection and somehow the ability to chuck, at minimum, 6 troops in it, while setting a weight limit of a minimum of 2 of a C-17, roughly 30-35 tons max. If a 25mm cannon and ATGMs practically left no room for troops on a Bradley imagine it for the soldiery when it gets equipped with a 50mm and ATGMs. Then you'd be stuck on a tank with no autocannon for suppressive fire against relatively armored or enclosed targets, and even more limited ammunition. This is outside of the requirements for future sustainability and upgrades. Think it's better they make compromises with the requirements or convert something that already exists, because if the previous programs had anything to tell them with the number of contractors who stepped forward, they're asking for something currently not possible with the tech we have today. Can look at the requirements and other details here: fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45519.pdf
great additional info thanks for that! You bring up great points about not having room for troops after they've added everything requirement. They are thinking of converting the existing Puma or Lynx currently, with the contractors that are usual suspects General Dynamics , Lockheed etc
Unless the vehicle is *designed around it's **_main purpose_* : ferrying a sufficient number of infantrymen 'safely' into a tank battle - there won't be a point in funding it, _at all_ .
Additional auto-cannons can be bolted on top of main battle tanks, but there's no point in rapid advancement if nobody comes along to hold the ground.
I thought the topic would be the Bradly, why is a German Puma always in the middle of the screen
Because its beautiful!
because the Puma/Lynx is pretty much the closest to the new requirements
Don’t worry we all know that the Chinese’s standard body armor will stop that 50 mm
Well considering they don’t have body armor I would certainly hope so