"No one goes to Fresno for a vacation, Colonel." I'm from Fresno and they nailed that correctly. The way they stitched this movie together is brilliant.
@@DASCO2136 Because they're an absolute joke. They believe that the the US military should use old and outdated equipment to solve modern military problems. Imagine believing that the M1's engine is dangerous to troops that walk behind it because it would burn them to death, the ammo is dangerous cause it's combustible just like the M551 and my personal favorite according to Pierre Spree the M48 was more survivable than the M1 because the Army never did any live fire tests. In the aviation side of things, they're the ones who proposed that the A-10 shouldn't have any radar, radar warning receivers nor a Constantly Computed Impact Point (CCIP). Same goes with the F-15 and F-16 except they wanted it to be a gun only aircraft because missiles are unreliable. James Burton (main character in book and film) proposed the idea of the Blitzfighter which is similar to the A-10. But when his superiors said that it should get a radar he said no basically because according to him radar can't differentiate a tank to a tree or a car filled with refugees. Also, when the army was making the A1 to improve survivability he suggested that the Bradley should put all of its ammo and fuel outside the vehicle and during the Army's High Survivability Test Bed Program the Army moved the water supply to the center of the vehicle so that if it got hit and there was an internal fire the water would put it out and he was outraged because according to him that's cheating apparently.
I wished we had we are in a world where the Russians were stopped by fucking Maxim machine guns and cold war RPGs while our super high tech wonder weapon tanks can't even cross trenches and anti tank ditches that ww1 generals would see no difference in from the war they just left.
@@Woodartifact388 why you booing me I'm right. Last I checked the whole war has devolved into trench warfare and artillery duels with drones and attack Helicopters.
The mix of comedy and seriousness kept me focused the whole time while watching this movie. All of the cast fill their roles strongly, but I would like to single out Kelsey Grammer as General Partridge. He is able to create a cunning character here, who is probably a military leader, but could just as well be a manipulative CEO, as we know in the corperate world.
Watching this movie after seeing video after video of Bradleys taking fire in Ukraine and proving one of the hardest IFVs to kill and one that gives its crew and passengers the highest possibility of survival... Well... 'Nough said...
@@russiasvechenaya58 how many of those 70 Bradleys’ crews confirmed dead? Not many it seems. In contrast to BMPs it seems that crews survive the loss of the vehicle to fight in another vehicle as veterans. And that was exactly my point.
@tombei4388 it's done insanely well; most of the time, a Bradley is destroyed in combat in Ukraine, and the crew walks away. Which is awesome. I am talking about Ukraine cause it's really the only time it's been used for the purpose it was designed.
While many hated how the story was far from factual, I still liked the movie for accurately portrays the chaotic mess of government bureaucracy and its politics. I think Kelsey Grammer did his part very well. Yes the so called "reformers" getting flamed lately for many of their dubious claim and controversy, but we have to understand that this is a movie not a documentary, and they shouldn't always be accurate and stick to the real story.
Initial, I thought it was accurate. But after reading up on, it, turns out it was extremely inaccurate and very one-sided. The “hero” of the movie had his own theory of how the military should be run. Meanwhile, the Bradley still in service.
The movie is very accurate, it is only the current military fan boys who lack any idea what the movie is about. Simply, the initial Bradley manufactured before 1988 was a lemon, it was until the live fire test Col. Burton insisted upon was the Bradley improved with more armor protection. Col. Burton was worried about the survivability rate of the soldiers if the Bradley got hit not if an anti-tank weapon could pierce the armor of the Bradley.
@@michaelotieno6524 No, the movie is very inaccurate. I actually research that after I watched it. The “hero” of the movie had his own agenda. The stuff like this happened, I’m sure. But not like this. If you take things that happen and pretend it happened on this program then that’s called inaccurate. By the way, the Bradley still in service
@@michaelotieno6524 and you do understand the conundrum facing the Army, right? That an IFV can only be so armored and protected before it becomes as heavy and as expensive as a main battle tank. This entire movie is the film version of “Hah, I portrayed you as the soyjack and myself as the Gigachad, I win” courtesy of the ‘Reformists.’
Yeah, as a satire of bureaucratic bloat and the nonsense that can happen with large, ambitious programs, it works. The problem is that it's pretty much inextricably linked with, well, the Reformer bullshit that underpins this *specific* story. There are so many other disaster stories that could be done, that would be factual, like the Medium Tank M7 from WW2.
Brilliant movie, even if it's a joke or not it still better than most bs movies that hollywood makes nowadays. 80s and 90s rocking till this day because of things like this, being a comedy, drama or action movie, they were all high quality and very entertain to watch; Now you barely find a good movie from "top tier" studios.
I was a mortarman in a mechanized infantry battalion during Desert Storm. Those Bradley's destroyed more T69s ,T72s,BMPs,and BRDMs than the Ambams with us .
From a British perspective... NOTHING HAS CHANGED !! Example: the £1-million each British Foxhound patrol vehicle, signed into service in 2012 Afghanistan despite it failing hot weather trials. Generals & government ministers were so busy with that corrupt on 11 Sept 2012 (run fake trials on Camp Bastion airfield) that they forgot to guard Camp Bastion's airfield. On 14 September the Taliban attacked the airfield, killed two US Marines & destroyed $400-million of kit - but all failures were covered up in subsequent inquiries, nobody British officers were held to account & the Foxhound continued into service. In 2017 it was reported that the Foxhound was still breaking down in hot weather - the fault was never fixed & it did cost British & allied personnel their lives. 'The Pentagon Wars' is a BRILLIANT film, exposing the corrupt profiteers that still populate our higher commands - hats off to all involved.
Love this movie but APCs and even ICVs are not designed to take a modern Anti tank weapon in the side, even a tank is vulnerable to that. An APC is designed to handle Artillery shrapnel and small caliber weapons like 5,56 and 7,62.
Thats the whole point. He is jsut the nwxt lwvel in military incompemtence asking foe the impossible. He wants thw bradley, which isnt a tank, to survivive an anti take round which is desined to destroy tanks. Its a stupid thing to ask of it because its something not even tanks could survive. 😊
Just like every Project! and not just the USA, and Uncle sam. That any of them work at all, is a miracle, and they could have been so much better, and cheaper if done right in the first place. Thanks for putting this film up.
A similar film could be made about the Boeing 737 except their emphasis is on net profits; damn safety, full speed ahead (putting profits ahead of quality inspections & safety, to keep cash flow high).
I think its funny that the film is based on a book. Written by James burton. If you consider how often they say how smart and good looking he is in the first 10 minutes of the movie he really knew how to present himself.
Having been a grunt in the Army when this was going on it brought back memories. Never did get in a unit with Bradleys. Just fixed up the ole M 113s for turn in then left for another duty station and did it again. I had a buddy who's Father did these kinds of tests, both were mechanical wizards who knew their stuff. This movies sounds like my buddy's dad's stories.
@@a.randomjack6661 just a heads up, Col. James Burton is a professional bull crapper and it was proved that 90% of this movie based on his book either didnt happen or didnt happen as described
@@a.randomjack6661 yes and no, Israel never had anything to do with the Bradleys. They knew it was a deathtrap and they will actually have to use it in battle soon.
Ironically, it turns out that the Bradly is the best piece of equipment the US has given Ukraine. It is actually useful in real war against a peer adversary.
@@vogs1010not exactly took it out but made it ineffective for combat. It was a case of the gunner knowing where the optics and other weak points on the tank were and shooting at them. If the driver hadn't hit a tree the tank would have gotten away to fight another day. It was a Kamikaze drone that finally took the tank out.
As a Brit I think this is a brilliant film. Especially as you could swap in oh so many British projects, Blue Steel, TSR-2, SA-80 and many many many more projects
My dad was a fighter pilot during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Then served at SAC and the Pentagon and retired a Colonel. I remember being in the Pentagon quite a few times as a kid back in the late 60's and early 70's. The floors go up in a real gentle spiral. Even back then there was a robot that would deliver mail down the hallway. Also there were reliefs in the walls. Dioramas of finely built model ships and planes behind glass. he was part of designing the F-111 at that time. Service had always been stressful and he drank alot. This was very enlightening as he died thirty years ago so I can't ask him about it, but I bet it was the same a few years back in his time. He retired in '72. We even went to see the military band play at the Watergate Hotel on New Years of that infamous year.
I served in the Army from 1983-1986. I was stationed at Ft. Ord,CA when the Sgt. York was being tested. I trained on M113's I never saw the Bradley or the M1. This movie is very interesting.
This was the part in "Idiocracy" while they were in stasis. You could insert this entire movie in between the time they were "frozen" and the time they woke up and it would make total sense.
In recent years, it's been discovered that Burton lied about a lot of things that are portrayed here. It's frustrating because Burton's approach involves playing with people's emotions. People like underdogs fighting the system, and he knows that all too well. Few examples. -The MICV program that led to the Bradley was always intended to have a turret. One of the early proposals was more or less a modified M113 that had a turret. -The Bradley program was actually around 4 billion UNDERBUDGET when Burton was involved in the program. This was out of a total project budget of 12 billion, as was discussed during the real-life hearing (which is portrayed late in the film). -Burton was the one who came up with the Joint Live Fire Test Program, in which he intended to destroy Bradleys. This was opposed because a.) he would be covering ground already covered and b.) it would be a costly program compared to point-by-point tests. Burton decided to see this as evidence of a cover-up. Other things, like the bit about water in the gas tanks, are misrepresented to make him look like the good guy. This shows vulnerabilities without completely destroying a vehicle or rendering it useless. The film also plays on emotions by making you think that the M2 needs to withstand anything and everything. And that anyone who doesn't agree with this doesn't care about the troops. So why did Burton go on this crusade, anyways? There's evidence to suggest that Burton was taking his anger out on the military for rejecting an aircraft proposal he drew up. He prided himself in being against things like infared, radar, and other such things. He was told the aircraft would at least need a radar, which he proclaimed couldn't tell the difference between a tank and a VW bus full of civvies (spoiler alert: things like radar and thermals allow you to make that distinction). So when his idea was turned down, he reacted like a kid being told to eat their vegetables. This isn't a story about exposing corruption and fighting for the men in the field. This is a fable spun by a scorned man looking to get even, consequences be damned, using manipulation and half-truths.
Yep, bullshit. Still doesn't change that the US military overspends like crazy and has to an increasing degree pursued idiotic or at least badly thought out and non-dedicated designs, due to the politicking and lucrativeness of a war economy for a country that doesn't itself have to directly go to war. The good end of it is in fact represented by things like the Bradley and the F-35; Vehicles and pieces of equipment which after a whole lot of brute forcing and in combination with intense testing and first-round field fixes end up as decently functional combat hardware. But that's the _good_ end of the spectrum. On the other end you have things like UCP camo, the Osprey, torpedoes that consistently fail to perform, countless cases of radar and lidar design failures... Usually smaller things, granted - but it all adds up. That's the problem. That's what ol' Dwight was partially warning about. The fundamental incentive of the Military Industrial Complex is to be an inefficiency maximizer. And while it may be that eventually enough of the stuff that gets turned out just by sheer amount of shit thrown at the wall passes muster... Well, when e.g. the CV90 can measure up to the Bradley or even by small measures outperform it, that's not a big whopper; But when put in the perspective that it was designed, tested and built by a marginal back-end nation in about half the time and at a _fraction_ of the cost... The comparison that springs to mind is Honda, Suzuki and all the others getting beat by Ducati in MotoGP. When they're giant industrials with billions dedicated to racing development and experience from even more fields to pull, while the other is a hard-run comparatively boutique shop with less than a twelfth of the budget. The problem is the waste. Which is in itself a two-way street. Because firstly that money goes towards that churning machine of turning around metal uselessly, seeing as it will often simply end up on the scrap heap - which is not the harm in itself really; It's called a deterrence, and it does get recovered and sponsor some actual production and engineering and recovery jobs and turnout. But it does do harm by over-promoting the unmeritorious and boosting politicals and agendas that couldn't work without the oodles of waste cash and sleaze that it enables. And secondly, that money then detracts from or crowds out the stuff and the people that is actually meritorious, more focused on pure engineering. That's the issue that some kind of film _should_ have been made about. It's just that it would be hard to film or get any sort of consistent red thread through it all, to make some kind of tie-in subject or project to center it all around for a narrative. Not to mention it would be difficult just to get some people _engaged._ "What are you talking about? We already know the military waste so much money!" Instead we got this bit of garbage.
@@johnw1954There are some serious differences in those two movies tho - Death of Stalin is a full blown comedy, a lot of historical facts were changed or condensed in time to better fit the movie format. But overall the movie does a very good job portraying the terror Stalin posed and the political climate and power struggle which occured after his death - of course in a exaggerated, comical way. Pentagon wars on the other hand is just straight up lies tho, fully made to discredit the military and push a false narrative.
but it does need to withstand AT LEAST a $30 60 year old handheld anti tank rocket that almost everyone has, and because of the reformer efforts it did. this was partly the reason for the success of the gulf war with so little American casualties.
@@johnw1954 the difference is that death of stalin is actually funny and an actual well made critique of the electric boogaloo that was ussr politics during early cold war era. this movie on the other hand is basically just burton with the soy face angerly writing down a bunch of out of context features of the bradley to make it seem like its a bad vehicle.
Do I believe Department of Defense apologists or do I believe a whistle blower? The military has been lying and covering up for as long as I can remember. I am 81 years old. The military does not respect or trust civilians. Civilians should not respect or trust the military.
@@gordonhaire9206that “whistleblower” was in a group who called the Abrams tank, F-15, and F-22 shit. That “whistleblower” even designed a discount A-10 with only a gun and a radio. That “whistleblower” and his ilk’s live fire test basically dumbs down to destroying a not-tank with a tank-killing weapon. What even is the methodology when you know it will destroy something that isn’t a tank? It’s like trying to study air crashes by putting the damn thing into a shredder and hydraulic press. You learn nothing from it other than it’s dead. So I’ll take the DoD “apologists” on this one.
@@poisonshadow317 Considering what F-22 should had: side looking dishes and FLIR; and what it received: modification of wing to carry external fuel tanks; F-22 is a very very shadow of oneself. How it's going to perform when FOX-3 suddenly behaves like FOX-1? Oh. Nohow. When they jam GPS signal and then jam the missile radar suite, it will be useless without guidance of the fighter. Which won't happen, because when F-22 doing a notch it can't look sideways and guide the missile.
What reality? This movie is based upone Burtons bullshit. He was defenatly one of the worst officers to ever enter the pentagon, they reconized this, he did not
most comments miss the point, its a satirical take on the inflated government spending and inertia of development caused by bureaucracy in the military industrial complex. the bradley and whether it works or not isn't the point.
The problem with that view is, that this movie was written and produced entirely from Burton's perspective. Later it was revealed Burton was the one sabotaging the trials while doing the same corruption he accused his enemies of. It is this moment the viewer becomes the fool in this satire - which is not intended by the movie.
@@Beaver.17 The main source that debunks much of Burtons claims are "The Bradley and how it got that way : technology, institutions, and the problem of mechanized infantry in the United States Army" by W. Blair Haworth Jr.
@@matthewjones39 To be even more fair, virtually every T series tank is either a T-60 or a T-70 crossdressing as something more advanced than it really is.
@NewGuyStudios name one thing that was amazing day one and didn't fail constantly. I remember the F22 not being great until it finished all its trials. The Bradley was the same, so was the A1M1.
And it became thus because there where people nagging that the bradley was a abhorent chimera. The other side is the one with the blind praises, huge parades and not done work, producing tanks that go pop-tart. Lets keep it that way. Criticizing stuff to improve it, does improve it.
@@NewGuyStudios It was "used" twice, it didn't fail because it was pointless to use it anyway so there was nothing to fail at. Also it was "used" twice but the US alone has fired over a thousand and many of those did fail, some even manage to fail even though they were not fired. Also also, there are the 27 that were fired in "peaceful use" for Operation Plowshare that also failed spectacularly. You seem to be really ignorant about nuclear weapons. It's a fun although at times depressing topic, you could learn a little about it.
I enjoy this movie inspite of it being "A True Story" its a funny caricature of the procurement process. This is just me and its with all movies like this and it suspends my disbelief, and yes its a nit pick, it looks EXTREMLY Southern California.
Considering the gov't's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, I wonder if Hollywood would considering making a movie like this about that relationship? Not holding my breath.
This movie is almost 30 years old. Bradley might be good today, I don't know. I am willing to bet the story was probably pretty different 30 years ago.
@@amedv For run and gun penetration thrusts the M1A1 would find it's place but not with drones, mines and built-up defensive lines. In defensive maneuvers and small insertion attacks the Bradley rules.
@@MrKbtor2 I was talking about a bunch of M1A2s, not three dozen of M1A1s from some junkyard Ukraine actually got. The same applies to upcoming overdue-for-decommission F-16.
@@amedv Doesn't matter what model of Abrams Ukraine deploys. The drones are flown to hit it from above and from rear, which is how Javelin bypasses the frontal armor. Drone doesn't care for Depleted Uranium in the turret sides, cheeks and hull glacis. It hits the roof of the turret on top of ammo compartment or engine compartment. Tank will be immobilized and finished off with a couple more drones or artillery.
I came here to watch Kelsey Grammer...after watching "Miss Willoughby,&The Haunted Bookstore", that I thoroughly enjoyed, I found myself needing more Kelsey Grammer:)
Procurement. Never an easy task. As a comedy, this is an okay movie. As a depiction of the actual story - it's bo11ocks. For starers, why an APC or an IFV even should be able to sustain an anti-tank round. Even tanks rarely do...
@@AnzaChannel123 Yes, yes... Add empirical evidence, for instance: all those Bradleys operating in Ukraine, that usually turn Ruzzians into homogenate, and often can stand up to their tanks. All with absolutely excellent survivability for an IFV and I think we are done here.
@@AnzaChannel123 With add on armor and and reactive armor the Bradley can now stop RPGs, but expecting it to stop an RPG from the start without any ERA is absurd, even main battle tanks are vulnerable to RPGs from the side.
1:43:40 Great movie!! I was a 19D cavalry scout during the time of this movie. So many things ring true about the attitudes of Army officers during this time period.
@@mrjohnsonjohn no because James Burton is a notoriously pathological liar. The whole reason he got reassigned in the first place was that he submitted a really retarded design for an aircraft and when the Air Force told him to fuck off he got assigned to the Bradley project with an axe to grind. He’s famously reclusive as he refuses to give any interviews or any comments to the press
The untested Mark 14 torpedoes used by USN submarines for the first 2 years of WWII displayed the same kind of thinking. US subs and lives were lost by REMF zeroes too proud to spend money to test weapons under combat conditions before they were deployed. It was "too expensive" to test them until they were used against enemy combatants, failed, and the price was paid in blood. The officers responsible defended their mistakes to the bitter end.
William Blandy was also the guy that refused the longer bombardment of Iwo Jima, he is probably at the top of the list for "incompetence that killed US soldiers"
This movie is a superb satire of the "military establishment", & the absurd & bureaucratic "top brass" metalities are spot on accurate, I imagine. The movie may not be entirely accurate, regarding all the problems, cost over runs, & hasty redesign proposals of the Bradley armored vehicle, but I think the movie showcases well the "ignorant (& corrupt) children with power" image of "top level brass", which I suspect is much closer to reality than to fiction.
I read somewhere that they actually were looking at designing a dedicated troop carrier variant of the Bradley, increasing it's troop capacity, as intended from the first drawing board. It would be WILDLY ironic and wind up the cherry on this sundae of a movie if it's true.
@@UserUser-ww2nj FALSE... there was NEVER any issue with the Bradley, the movie is totally Hollywood make believe BS. Go watch "LazerPig's" video on this subject if you want the real story about what a mental patient and liar Burton was.
@@swatboy763 I know this, it had a simple 20mm autocannon instead of the 25mm, which had a much more beefy enclosure than what the original gun was mounted on.
@@swatboy763 I am always amazed that people think that stupid Hollywood movies are like "documentaries" and they get their information from them. So many of the 1di0ts making comments in here actually think this movie is true.
that is cause after all those upgrades they realized that they still needed a troop transport that could carry infantry that being said they still are tossing turrets and cannons on the fucking thing
No, it starts of as M113-V2 (APC) and turns into an actual IFW, a new invention at the time, just like the Soviets did with there BMPs. Strykers are wheeled and not tracked.
@AnzaChannel123 no but he was as dirty as they come. He also lied about every part of the Bradley development process in his book and the film got it even more wrong. And yes a lt col got a lot of kickbacks, just like col McGregor is currently receiving from RT and the russian government. He also didn't fight against the bloated system, he was very much a part of that system. His claim that the us army messed with the test is bs, blowing up a Bradley doesn't tell you anything. Leaving inert ammo and water in the fuel tanks let's them see vulnerable areas. But he was too stupid to understand that. The army realized pretty quickly that he wasn't worth the time he was wasting and opted to transfer him. Finally the Bradley wasn't over budget, it was under budget, and delivered early, and is still considered one of the best ifvs in the world. And no that's not because of him, it's in spite of him. The military never adopted any of his recommendations, never used any of his advice. And Israel has never purchased a single Bradley as they were developing their own ifv at the time. That part of the movie was a lie.
Ok i get your points. But you are accusing another Col .... are your CIA, Military Intelligence, NSA etc are sleeping ? or you are more informed than them somehow ? ;)
"we fought a revolution so we didn't have to listen to the British anymore". Col. Burton "well, I AM British, so you're gonna have to listen some more".
A lovely reminder for everyone that the reformers (which burton is a part of) don’t understand what role the Bradley (and other modern equipment) is supposed to play, and measure the effectiveness of an new system with the same Metric as the old, despite the fact that warfare changed and the new equipment plays a now different role
I'm only 30 minutes into this movie and it's cracking me up! Not because it's outlandish but it's what I'd expect from a bunch of pentagon politicians pretending they are military officers. Thanks for putting this movie up!❤
@Beaver.17 not at all... They didn't know what they were fighting against and Ukraine has been decades down the road after they spent billions more retrofitting and correcting the design
The movie says the truth about the Bradley. The current Bradley is not the same as the earlier Bradley manufactured between 1981 to 1988. The post 1988 improvements are thanks to Col. Burton here.
@@michaelotieno6524 no it does not say the truth about anything, most of the stuff in that movie that they made huge deal out are in real life non issue and most of the real issue the Bradley had where never raised by Burton, so no the later design we have of the Bradley is not thanks to Burton.
I remember being 15 when this movie was released on HBO. I love this movie. 'NOW LISTEN TO ME YOU FUCKIN FLY BOY YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT COMBAT!"
Yknow the general guy has a good point about the tests. They literally can’t afford to just blow up everything, so the thing like water in the tank to show if it penetrates and other things like that is a way to not completely blow it up. And leaning about the actual background, yeah I can see why this movie pisses people off
Also a point the movie missed - that sometimes a weapon with minor defects is better than an out of date weapon and the US army had no effective IFV prior to the Bradley which put the troops at a big disadvantage - delaying essential weapons can also get people killed. I mean imagine if the Gulf war was fought only with Abrams and M113's? I think the movie was overly harsh to General Partridge.
I suspect that the Bradley is the most popular piece of armour to end up in Ukraine, but it's addition to the Western armour graveyard in Moscow is probably it's most impressive gig...
@@bobwoods1302 Agreed... they all burn and the Abrams in Moscow hadn't even been cleaned up before it was put on display! In fact, the video segment I watched showed the channel author get his hands dirty as he touched it. Armour of all kinds ends up burnt in Ukraine, including the "invincible" turtle tank, which is almost impossible to stop!
@@bobwoods1302 I have no idea what you mean, but your reply sounds like a snappy soundbite. Have you watched the (free on UA-cam) foreign language film White Tiger? If you haven't, may I recommend it? It has English subtitles but looks at the life of a tank crew in WW2, among other things. Spoiler alert... the T-34 doesn't do so well in the film!
This movie wasn’t silly number one. It should’ve never been deemed a comedy because we have shit like this going on all the time and the people high Dollar generals they’re not the ones getting their skin burn off their body, arms, and legs torn off. It’s the guy and the women were suffering because of their desire to have a nicer lifestyle by taking payoffs
A first class movie, right up there with the 'Yes Minister' series, thank you. A real shame about Col Burton being forced to retire. Sometimes real men have to as the Romans put it, "fall on ones sword" as I know from 'practical' experience, & Col Burton was (I hope still is) one such man. I do hope he found a good a for filling life after the great service he performed.
Dude he made most the shit up, this film is based off his book in which he lies multiple times and much of his story can't be backed up by any other source than him
This movie makes me think about the Mark 14 torpedo that had a nasty habit of exploding too soon or too late if it didn't made a 180 degree turn after launch and attacked the sub that had launched it. Yet the bureau of ordinance kept on saying that there was nothing wrong with it and that the 'accidents' were caused by the crew, not following protocol. No kidding.
Col. Burton's speech about the M16 is so heavily false. The M16 was probably they most tested rifle to ever be tested by any military. And the testing was made to make that rifle fail, and it succeeded every part. The reason why the rifle was so bad, is because old school general made I that the barrels were not chrome lined, and that the powder that was used in the 5.56 was not suitable for the climate in Vietnam. Once those issues were corrected, it became a really good rifle.
Yeah, the entire movie is fiction. I'd like to point out that the movie doesn't even depict the book it's based upon. I'll point that out again, because a lot of people in these comments are playing dumb about it. The Book that Burton wrote, and this movie supposedly about that book, are COMPLETELY different.
@@MaxxCoyote Man, I am glad the top comments are taking this movie to task. It is a complete work or fiction and the result of lies from a weird internal propaganda group trying to shovel their own extremely poor military doctrine.
@@Rostifurd People seem to keep forgetting, or just don't know somehow, that not only is this an HBO produced COMEDY, but it came out in 1998 for christ's sake. And again, the events in the film aren't what Burton wrote about anyway. Plus, not only is his book around to be read, not only can you look up his complete joke of a plane (the rejection of which is what chapped his ass so badly) but you can even find a transcript of what I believe was his congressional testimony. Put simply.... 1. Burton wasn't appointed by congress. 2. He came up with the "Joint testing" idea, and pitched it. The navy and airforce said no, but the army agreed. 3. The biggest argument was that Burton wanted to load the Bradley up and hit it with an anti-tank weapon. To which the army went "No need, we already know what will happen. It'll blow up." Because of fucking course it would. At no time, or point, was the Bradley supposed to be able to shrug off an anti-tank round. Burton wanted to blow it up, blow a lot of them up actually, but never got around to pointing out what the fuck doing so was supposed to tell anyone. What data would be gathered and how, as they poured over the smoking, burning wreckage, were they supposed to learn ANYTHING other than "It blew up" Finally, the Bradley isn't an ACP, "Just a troop carrier". It's an IFV, Infantry fighting vehicle. It's supposed to get you there, offer covering fire and support, and then do other shit. Which it's apparently done very well, given that it's still in service as of 2024. And everything I've just said is pretty much public record and easy to find. Because I'm not some military expert, or historian who did loads of research.
@firebat2120 . . . What you say is total BS. Were YOU in Vietnam? . . . I was - in 1968 and 1969. Those frickin' early M-16s jammed and jammed and jammed every time a little piece of sand got into them. It had NOTHING to do with chrome barrels or unsuitable powder. After they redesigned the M-16s they worked fine. And now the kids have AR-15a to play with.
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Closing Time' by Joseph Heller - a sequel to Catch-22. This film is remarkably cohesive with that storyline. With much finer tolerances and successful tests than the original Bradley program.
Just found this good movie on military waste and self delusion. The corrected version of the Bradley did well but it’s not what was had in mind first design time. I remember ricocheting off this kind of ministry foolishness myself when serving.
Yeah but it's based kinda real events, only that the tank was actually good, and the main character irl was a dumbass and today works for Russian propaganda media cause got fired
"No one goes to Fresno for a vacation, Colonel." I'm from Fresno and they nailed that correctly.
The way they stitched this movie together is brilliant.
@@Monty_BeGoodToEachOther at least you don’t need to walk far to find meth
brilliant in all aspects exept being a critique of the vehicle itself
@Monty_BeGoodToEachOther Hey at least that underground garden is pretty cool. I would happily drive there again with my grandma or something.
THE MESSAGE IS:DON,T BE A WHISTLE BLOWER OR YOU WILL END YOUR CAREER!ALL "YES:MEN WILL GO FAR!THAT WAS AWESOME!I LOVED IT!
@thomasshaw61 then you come back from being apart of the e4 mafia and become the vice president of the united states.
"We can't just go out and buy a sheep sir" is the best line ever. Delivered with such confidence too. The military is such an amazing, insane animal.
See UA-cam? You can do it! A full movie without f-ing commercials!
I got one
Yea, but it’s illegal…
@@mason96575not illegal until noticed
After watching the movie, I am glad that the military didn't take reformers seriously.
Why do you say that?
@@DASCO2136 Because they're an absolute joke. They believe that the the US military should use old and outdated equipment to solve modern military problems.
Imagine believing that the M1's engine is dangerous to troops that walk behind it because it would burn them to death, the ammo is dangerous cause it's combustible just like the M551 and my personal favorite according to Pierre Spree the M48 was more survivable than the M1 because the Army never did any live fire tests. In the aviation side of things, they're the ones who proposed that the A-10 shouldn't have any radar, radar warning receivers nor a Constantly Computed Impact Point (CCIP). Same goes with the F-15 and F-16 except they wanted it to be a gun only aircraft because missiles are unreliable.
James Burton (main character in book and film) proposed the idea of the Blitzfighter which is similar to the A-10. But when his superiors said that it should get a radar he said no basically because according to him radar can't differentiate a tank to a tree or a car filled with refugees. Also, when the army was making the A1 to improve survivability he suggested that the Bradley should put all of its ammo and fuel outside the vehicle and during the Army's High Survivability Test Bed Program the Army moved the water supply to the center of the vehicle so that if it got hit and there was an internal fire the water would put it out and he was outraged because according to him that's cheating apparently.
I wished we had we are in a world where the Russians were stopped by fucking Maxim machine guns and cold war RPGs while our super high tech wonder weapon tanks can't even cross trenches and anti tank ditches that ww1 generals would see no difference in from the war they just left.
@@zeo-pe5sgfound the Russian bot
@@Woodartifact388 why you booing me I'm right. Last I checked the whole war has devolved into trench warfare and artillery duels with drones and attack Helicopters.
The mix of comedy and seriousness kept me focused the whole time while watching this movie. All of the cast fill their roles strongly, but I would like to single out Kelsey Grammer as General Partridge. He is able to create a cunning character here, who is probably a military leader, but could just as well be a manipulative CEO, as we know in the corperate world.
Watching this movie after seeing video after video of Bradleys taking fire in Ukraine and proving one of the hardest IFVs to kill and one that gives its crew and passengers the highest possibility of survival... Well... 'Nough said...
Careful now, you might summon the vatniks who will cry about Russia stronk and 2 week to Kiev
70 confirmed bradley’s lost already
@russiasvechenaya58 70 bradleys out of how many lost bmps and t70s?
@@russiasvechenaya58 how many of those 70 Bradleys’ crews confirmed dead? Not many it seems. In contrast to BMPs it seems that crews survive the loss of the vehicle to fight in another vehicle as veterans. And that was exactly my point.
They’re so good there’s a square named in its honour in U.
'You can't afford a door like that" gets me every time
😂😊
@Kendingro msc orders from china......I mean home depot and lowes.
its funny how awesome this thing turned out to be.
I believe a square in Ukraine is named after it.
17 years in the egg developing and $17 BILLION later it should have been that and better.
@@tombei4388
It's funny that even wikipedia doesn't agree with that number
@tombei4388 it's done insanely well; most of the time, a Bradley is destroyed in combat in Ukraine, and the crew walks away. Which is awesome. I am talking about Ukraine cause it's really the only time it's been used for the purpose it was designed.
I take the word of the tankers I know that say it is a PoS.
While many hated how the story was far from factual, I still liked the movie for accurately portrays the chaotic mess of government bureaucracy and its politics. I think Kelsey Grammer did his part very well. Yes the so called "reformers" getting flamed lately for many of their dubious claim and controversy, but we have to understand that this is a movie not a documentary, and they shouldn't always be accurate and stick to the real story.
Initial, I thought it was accurate. But after reading up on, it, turns out it was extremely inaccurate and very one-sided.
The “hero” of the movie had his own theory of how the military should be run. Meanwhile, the Bradley still in service.
The movie is very accurate, it is only the current military fan boys who lack any idea what the movie is about.
Simply, the initial Bradley manufactured before 1988 was a lemon, it was until the live fire test Col. Burton insisted upon was the Bradley improved with more armor protection.
Col. Burton was worried about the survivability rate of the soldiers if the Bradley got hit not if an anti-tank weapon could pierce the armor of the Bradley.
@@michaelotieno6524
No, the movie is very inaccurate. I actually research that after I watched it. The “hero” of the movie had his own agenda. The stuff like this happened, I’m sure. But not like this. If you take things that happen and pretend it happened on this program then that’s called inaccurate.
By the way, the Bradley still in service
@@michaelotieno6524 and you do understand the conundrum facing the Army, right? That an IFV can only be so armored and protected before it becomes as heavy and as expensive as a main battle tank.
This entire movie is the film version of “Hah, I portrayed you as the soyjack and myself as the Gigachad, I win” courtesy of the ‘Reformists.’
Yeah, as a satire of bureaucratic bloat and the nonsense that can happen with large, ambitious programs, it works. The problem is that it's pretty much inextricably linked with, well, the Reformer bullshit that underpins this *specific* story. There are so many other disaster stories that could be done, that would be factual, like the Medium Tank M7 from WW2.
Brilliant movie, even if it's a joke or not it still better than most bs movies that hollywood makes nowadays. 80s and 90s rocking till this day because of things like this, being a comedy, drama or action movie, they were all high quality and very entertain to watch; Now you barely find a good movie from "top tier" studios.
I was a mortarman in a mechanized infantry battalion during Desert Storm. Those Bradley's destroyed more T69s ,T72s,BMPs,and BRDMs than the Ambams with us .
Solute! Thank you for your service!
T69 as type 69 ?
Yeah, because arab armies are known for their skill lol
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T69_tank
Cary Elwes being English did a damned good job of playing an American officer. I hope he does more like this movie.
Fantastic movie! Kelsey Grammar and Cary Elwes at their best!
Can't stop watching this film.
This is a classic that never gets old.
Too bad it’s all a lie.
Well written script. Perfect picture of the SWAMP.
would highly recommend learning what satire is or literally anything about the author
From a British perspective... NOTHING HAS CHANGED !! Example: the £1-million each British Foxhound patrol vehicle, signed into service in 2012 Afghanistan despite it failing hot weather trials. Generals & government ministers were so busy with that corrupt on 11 Sept 2012 (run fake trials on Camp Bastion airfield) that they forgot to guard Camp Bastion's airfield. On 14 September the Taliban attacked the airfield, killed two US Marines & destroyed $400-million of kit - but all failures were covered up in subsequent inquiries, nobody British officers were held to account & the Foxhound continued into service. In 2017 it was reported that the Foxhound was still breaking down in hot weather - the fault was never fixed & it did cost British & allied personnel their lives. 'The Pentagon Wars' is a BRILLIANT film, exposing the corrupt profiteers that still populate our higher commands - hats off to all involved.
Did the Foxhound have an insane RAF Colonel who did not know how testing worked and when people tried to explain it to him he yelled "conspiracy."
Pentagon wars is a comedy film that should not be taken seriously
Correction: The Pentagon is a comedy that can't be taken seriously
@@anthonycheaford1962 from a suggestion to indisputable law
I'm worrying about NGAD
Love this movie but APCs and even ICVs are not designed to take a modern Anti tank weapon in the side, even a tank is vulnerable to that. An APC is designed to handle Artillery shrapnel and small caliber weapons like 5,56 and 7,62.
Thats the whole point. He is jsut the nwxt lwvel in military incompemtence asking foe the impossible. He wants thw bradley, which isnt a tank, to survivive an anti take round which is desined to destroy tanks. Its a stupid thing to ask of it because its something not even tanks could survive. 😊
“No one goes to Fresno for a vacation, colonel.” 😂
Kelsey Grammer was absolutely fantastic in this movie.
1:31:31 #goirish
Yo, I remember that lego brick!
Cary Elwes is such a likable good actor.
Just like every Project! and not just the USA, and Uncle sam.
That any of them work at all, is a miracle, and they could have been so much better, and cheaper if done right in the first place.
Thanks for putting this film up.
Unlike other Airforce colonels, I can speak with an English accent
Lo😂
@Mixboy2105 he still in those tights. They just air force blues now. Also, we just saw Pinky when he served in the army.
@@Mixboy2105 so that's how Amanda waler got her start and started doing evil shit. This is called foreshadowing.
A similar film could be made about the Boeing 737 except their emphasis is on net profits; damn safety, full speed ahead (putting profits ahead of quality inspections & safety, to keep cash flow high).
Only in the case of Boeing it would not have to be full of lies
"Bradley takes it personally"
Bradley destroyed more tanks than Main Battle Tank.
I think its funny that the film is based on a book. Written by James burton. If you consider how often they say how smart and good looking he is in the first 10 minutes of the movie he really knew how to present himself.
This movie is wonderful! It’s like a cross between Dr. Strangelove and all the presidents men. ♥️
I saw Kelsey Grammer and thought this was gonna be a "Down Periscope" situation. Gat _damn!_ this hit harder than I was expecting! Glad I watched!
Having been a grunt in the Army when this was going on it brought back memories. Never did get in a unit with Bradleys. Just fixed up the ole M 113s for turn in then left for another duty station and did it again. I had a buddy who's Father did these kinds of tests, both were mechanical wizards who knew their stuff. This movies sounds like my buddy's dad's stories.
This movie is in fact a documentary based on a book
@@a.randomjack6661 just a heads up, Col. James Burton is a professional bull crapper and it was proved that 90% of this movie based on his book either didnt happen or didnt happen as described
@@a.randomjack6661 yes and no, Israel never had anything to do with the Bradleys. They knew it was a deathtrap and they will actually have to use it in battle soon.
@@a.randomjack6661 It is not. It is a parody of self-biography written by a narcissist
Ironically, it turns out that the Bradly is the best piece of equipment the US has given Ukraine. It is actually useful in real war against a peer adversary.
The updated version that went trough the gulf war at least... xD
Well, Russian out dated equipment is hardly a fair fight.
@wzk921109 they took out a t-90m that is the newest updated main battle tank tf you mean outdated
@@vogs1010not exactly took it out but made it ineffective for combat.
It was a case of the gunner knowing where the optics and other weak points on the tank were and shooting at them. If the driver hadn't hit a tree the tank would have gotten away to fight another day. It was a Kamikaze drone that finally took the tank out.
@@Epic0201 Bradly's outperformed abrahms in the guld war lmao
anyone else here from the mail truck video
Yep, had to look for "tank design movie".
Yes
Yip
Aye sir
Me
"The men will have to wear the missiles as hats."
😂😂😂😂
As a Brit I think this is a brilliant film. Especially as you could swap in oh so many British projects, Blue Steel, TSR-2, SA-80 and many many many more projects
I think if they made a movie about the Sgt York DIVAD system, it would make this movie look tame in comparison.
Being as how nothing in the movie is real, yeah I guess so. You realize the entire movie is total BS... right?
@@_Coffee4Closers Can you MIC ball washers quit spazzing out for ten seconds?
"War is a Racket" by two-time Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC (R). If you liked this movie, you should read it.
Love all those black and white images at the start
That´s my favourite part of the movie
My dad was a fighter pilot during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Then served at SAC and the Pentagon and retired a Colonel. I remember being in the Pentagon quite a few times as a kid back in the late 60's and early 70's. The floors go up in a real gentle spiral. Even back then there was a robot that would deliver mail down the hallway. Also there were reliefs in the walls. Dioramas of finely built model ships and planes behind glass. he was part of designing the F-111 at that time. Service had always been stressful and he drank alot. This was very enlightening as he died thirty years ago so I can't ask him about it, but I bet it was the same a few years back in his time. He retired in '72. We even went to see the military band play at the Watergate Hotel on New Years of that infamous year.
I served in the Army from 1983-1986. I was stationed at Ft. Ord,CA when the Sgt. York was being tested. I trained on M113's I never saw the Bradley or the M1. This movie is very interesting.
I also served that same time frame & at good old foggy fort Ord. Heavy field artillery King of battle. This movie supprises me not.
Hilarious no matter if the story is true or not. If it is true it is so unbelievably horrible for the victims. Great actors. I loved this movie.
This was the part in "Idiocracy" while they were in stasis.
You could insert this entire movie in between the time they were "frozen" and the time they woke up and it would make total sense.
Nothing much changed - greed and ego still rule the day!
In recent years, it's been discovered that Burton lied about a lot of things that are portrayed here. It's frustrating because Burton's approach involves playing with people's emotions. People like underdogs fighting the system, and he knows that all too well. Few examples.
-The MICV program that led to the Bradley was always intended to have a turret. One of the early proposals was more or less a modified M113 that had a turret.
-The Bradley program was actually around 4 billion UNDERBUDGET when Burton was involved in the program. This was out of a total project budget of 12 billion, as was discussed during the real-life hearing (which is portrayed late in the film).
-Burton was the one who came up with the Joint Live Fire Test Program, in which he intended to destroy Bradleys. This was opposed because a.) he would be covering ground already covered and b.) it would be a costly program compared to point-by-point tests. Burton decided to see this as evidence of a cover-up.
Other things, like the bit about water in the gas tanks, are misrepresented to make him look like the good guy. This shows vulnerabilities without completely destroying a vehicle or rendering it useless. The film also plays on emotions by making you think that the M2 needs to withstand anything and everything. And that anyone who doesn't agree with this doesn't care about the troops.
So why did Burton go on this crusade, anyways? There's evidence to suggest that Burton was taking his anger out on the military for rejecting an aircraft proposal he drew up. He prided himself in being against things like infared, radar, and other such things. He was told the aircraft would at least need a radar, which he proclaimed couldn't tell the difference between a tank and a VW bus full of civvies (spoiler alert: things like radar and thermals allow you to make that distinction). So when his idea was turned down, he reacted like a kid being told to eat their vegetables.
This isn't a story about exposing corruption and fighting for the men in the field. This is a fable spun by a scorned man looking to get even, consequences be damned, using manipulation and half-truths.
It's like the Death of Stalin - dramatized, and best looked at as a good example of politicking.
Both movies are not a documentary.
Yep, bullshit. Still doesn't change that the US military overspends like crazy and has to an increasing degree pursued idiotic or at least badly thought out and non-dedicated designs, due to the politicking and lucrativeness of a war economy for a country that doesn't itself have to directly go to war.
The good end of it is in fact represented by things like the Bradley and the F-35; Vehicles and pieces of equipment which after a whole lot of brute forcing and in combination with intense testing and first-round field fixes end up as decently functional combat hardware. But that's the _good_ end of the spectrum. On the other end you have things like UCP camo, the Osprey, torpedoes that consistently fail to perform, countless cases of radar and lidar design failures... Usually smaller things, granted - but it all adds up.
That's the problem. That's what ol' Dwight was partially warning about. The fundamental incentive of the Military Industrial Complex is to be an inefficiency maximizer. And while it may be that eventually enough of the stuff that gets turned out just by sheer amount of shit thrown at the wall passes muster... Well, when e.g. the CV90 can measure up to the Bradley or even by small measures outperform it, that's not a big whopper; But when put in the perspective that it was designed, tested and built by a marginal back-end nation in about half the time and at a _fraction_ of the cost... The comparison that springs to mind is Honda, Suzuki and all the others getting beat by Ducati in MotoGP. When they're giant industrials with billions dedicated to racing development and experience from even more fields to pull, while the other is a hard-run comparatively boutique shop with less than a twelfth of the budget.
The problem is the waste. Which is in itself a two-way street. Because firstly that money goes towards that churning machine of turning around metal uselessly, seeing as it will often simply end up on the scrap heap - which is not the harm in itself really; It's called a deterrence, and it does get recovered and sponsor some actual production and engineering and recovery jobs and turnout. But it does do harm by over-promoting the unmeritorious and boosting politicals and agendas that couldn't work without the oodles of waste cash and sleaze that it enables. And secondly, that money then detracts from or crowds out the stuff and the people that is actually meritorious, more focused on pure engineering.
That's the issue that some kind of film _should_ have been made about. It's just that it would be hard to film or get any sort of consistent red thread through it all, to make some kind of tie-in subject or project to center it all around for a narrative. Not to mention it would be difficult just to get some people _engaged._ "What are you talking about? We already know the military waste so much money!"
Instead we got this bit of garbage.
@@johnw1954There are some serious differences in those two movies tho - Death of Stalin is a full blown comedy, a lot of historical facts were changed or condensed in time to better fit the movie format. But overall the movie does a very good job portraying the terror Stalin posed and the political climate and power struggle which occured after his death - of course in a exaggerated, comical way.
Pentagon wars on the other hand is just straight up lies tho, fully made to discredit the military and push a false narrative.
but it does need to withstand AT LEAST a $30 60 year old handheld anti tank rocket that almost everyone has, and because of the reformer efforts it did. this was partly the reason for the success of the gulf war with so little American casualties.
@@johnw1954 the difference is that death of stalin is actually funny and an actual well made critique of the electric boogaloo that was ussr politics during early cold war era.
this movie on the other hand is basically just burton with the soy face angerly writing down a bunch of out of context features of the bradley to make it seem like its a bad vehicle.
Don't ask men how much money they make,
Don't ask women their age
Don't ask Frasier Crane what he did in the 1980's
You tubers Chieftain and Spookston have very good videos debunking this. Lazerpig has a video debunkinf the whole fighter mafia/reformer lot.
Do I believe Department of Defense apologists or do I believe a whistle blower? The military has been lying and covering up for as long as I can remember. I am 81 years old. The military does not respect or trust civilians. Civilians should not respect or trust the military.
@@gordonhaire9206 Not all "Whistle Blowers" are created equal
and Burton sure wasn't the brilliant, bright-eyed hero he made himself in his own book.
@@gordonhaire9206that “whistleblower” was in a group who called the Abrams tank, F-15, and F-22 shit. That “whistleblower” even designed a discount A-10 with only a gun and a radio. That “whistleblower” and his ilk’s live fire test basically dumbs down to destroying a not-tank with a tank-killing weapon. What even is the methodology when you know it will destroy something that isn’t a tank? It’s like trying to study air crashes by putting the damn thing into a shredder and hydraulic press. You learn nothing from it other than it’s dead. So I’ll take the DoD “apologists” on this one.
@@poisonshadow317 butthurt much ?
@@poisonshadow317 Considering what F-22 should had: side looking dishes and FLIR; and what it received: modification of wing to carry external fuel tanks; F-22 is a very very shadow of oneself.
How it's going to perform when FOX-3 suddenly behaves like FOX-1? Oh. Nohow. When they jam GPS signal and then jam the missile radar suite, it will be useless without guidance of the fighter. Which won't happen, because when F-22 doing a notch it can't look sideways and guide the missile.
The first weapon, the heat seeking missle, combined with the second, the Pave Way, was pretty much the Javelin in it's infancy. 🧐😬🙄😶🌫️
Who else checks the comments to see if it’s the right movie ?
Well done. Humor and deceipt enough to keep interest through the movie. And a good dash of reality.
What reality? This movie is based upone Burtons bullshit. He was defenatly one of the worst officers to ever enter the pentagon, they reconized this, he did not
most comments miss the point, its a satirical take on the inflated government spending and inertia of development caused by bureaucracy in the military industrial complex. the bradley and whether it works or not isn't the point.
The problem with that view is, that this movie was written and produced entirely from Burton's perspective. Later it was revealed Burton was the one sabotaging the trials while doing the same corruption he accused his enemies of.
It is this moment the viewer becomes the fool in this satire - which is not intended by the movie.
@@DAS_k1ishEe what's your source on that?
@@Beaver.17 The main source that debunks much of Burtons claims are "The Bradley and how it got that way : technology, institutions, and the problem of mechanized infantry in the United States Army" by W. Blair Haworth Jr.
Ok. And the end result is a world leading system that cost a bit more than the first optimistic predictions projected?
Kelsey Grammer was perfect for this roll😅
The Bradley continues to prove itself in every conflict since it was developed.
It buckbroke a T-90 in Ukraine last year.
Chadley just keeps taking wins and adding more notches to the bed post.
@@aregulargamer1To be fair, any tank in the T-90’s situation and any IFV would lead to the same result.
@@aregulargamer1 Probably one of their own.
@@matthewjones39 To be even more fair, virtually every T series tank is either a T-60 or a T-70 crossdressing as something more advanced than it really is.
@@aregulargamer1 Idk bro I’d say a T-80 is a lot more advanced than a T-62.
The blooper clips of early tanks at the beginning of this movie are hilarious ... Great movie.
The problem with the people who said the Bradley was a terrible chimera is that it's actually a fantastic beast.
yea after the other modifcations
@NewGuyStudios name one thing that was amazing day one and didn't fail constantly. I remember the F22 not being great until it finished all its trials. The Bradley was the same, so was the A1M1.
@tombows6980 the atomic bomb
Used twice never failed
And it became thus because there where people nagging that the bradley was a abhorent chimera. The other side is the one with the blind praises, huge parades and not done work, producing tanks that go pop-tart. Lets keep it that way. Criticizing stuff to improve it, does improve it.
@@NewGuyStudios It was "used" twice, it didn't fail because it was pointless to use it anyway so there was nothing to fail at. Also it was "used" twice but the US alone has fired over a thousand and many of those did fail, some even manage to fail even though they were not fired.
Also also, there are the 27 that were fired in "peaceful use" for Operation Plowshare that also failed spectacularly. You seem to be really ignorant about nuclear weapons. It's a fun although at times depressing topic, you could learn a little about it.
I enjoy this movie inspite of it being "A True Story" its a funny caricature of the procurement process.
This is just me and its with all movies like this and it suspends my disbelief, and yes its a nit pick, it looks EXTREMLY Southern California.
Do you LIVE in Southern California? I do. I see nothing "Southern California" in this film. Care to share your inside joke?
Considering the gov't's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, I wonder if Hollywood would considering making a movie like this about that relationship? Not holding my breath.
That would be a good one!
Isn’t the Bradley like outperforming straight up tanks in Ukraine ?
Yes
No
This movie is almost 30 years old. Bradley might be good today, I don't know. I am willing to bet the story was probably pretty different 30 years ago.
Not in this universe, no. They’re excelling at forming graveyards of twisted metal and serving as easy target practice for russki fpv drones.
@@silver965 The story is fictional and based on the book by James Burton. The Bradley IFV was perfect then and even now.
The Ukrainians love the hell out of it!
They would rather get a bunch of M1A2s instead, but beggars can't be choosers.
@@amedv For run and gun penetration thrusts the M1A1 would find it's place but not with drones, mines and built-up defensive lines. In defensive maneuvers and small insertion attacks the Bradley rules.
@@MrKbtor2 I was talking about a bunch of M1A2s, not three dozen of M1A1s from some junkyard Ukraine actually got. The same applies to upcoming overdue-for-decommission F-16.
That's because it is the best IFV on the planet, that movie is a totally made up LIE!
@@amedv Doesn't matter what model of Abrams Ukraine deploys. The drones are flown to hit it from above and from rear, which is how Javelin bypasses the frontal armor. Drone doesn't care for Depleted Uranium in the turret sides, cheeks and hull glacis. It hits the roof of the turret on top of ammo compartment or engine compartment. Tank will be immobilized and finished off with a couple more drones or artillery.
I came here to watch Kelsey Grammer...after watching "Miss Willoughby,&The Haunted Bookstore", that I thoroughly enjoyed, I found myself needing more Kelsey Grammer:)
"Down periscope" is another great military one with Kelsey.
ever since i saw this movie a few years ago this theme plays in my head at work alot lol
Procurement. Never an easy task.
As a comedy, this is an okay movie. As a depiction of the actual story - it's bo11ocks.
For starers, why an APC or an IFV even should be able to sustain an anti-tank round. Even tanks rarely do...
Not a Tow 2 ..... but atleast a RPG.
@@AnzaChannel123 Yes, yes... Add empirical evidence, for instance: all those Bradleys operating in Ukraine, that usually turn Ruzzians into homogenate, and often can stand up to their tanks. All with absolutely excellent survivability for an IFV and I think we are done here.
@@AnzaChannel123 With add on armor and and reactive armor the Bradley can now stop RPGs, but expecting it to stop an RPG from the start without any ERA is absurd, even main battle tanks are vulnerable to RPGs from the side.
“You can’t afford a door like that, did you see what it stood up to?” 😂
1:43:40 Great movie!! I was a 19D cavalry scout during the time of this movie. So many things ring true about the attitudes of Army officers during this time period.
As soon as I saw this I put it on.I first saw it on HBO when it first came out.Just as funny and relevant now.❤😂
i wonder how the director felt when he found out that 90% of the events in this movie didn't happen the way Col. James Burton described them.
Is that what the Generals in the US military told you. Lamooo
@@mrjohnsonjohn no because James Burton is a notoriously pathological liar. The whole reason he got reassigned in the first place was that he submitted a really retarded design for an aircraft and when the Air Force told him to fuck off he got assigned to the Bradley project with an axe to grind. He’s famously reclusive as he refuses to give any interviews or any comments to the press
There was no need for him to find it out afterwards. Have a look at 01:41:28 .
You mean because this is a movie for entertainment purposes?
Hollywood never been truthful even if they tried. Is obviously a cartoonish comedy.
The untested Mark 14 torpedoes used by USN submarines for the first 2 years of WWII displayed the same kind of thinking. US subs and lives were lost by REMF zeroes too proud to spend money to test weapons under combat conditions before they were deployed. It was "too expensive" to test them until they were used against enemy combatants, failed, and the price was paid in blood. The officers responsible defended their mistakes to the bitter end.
William Blandy was also the guy that refused the longer bombardment of Iwo Jima, he is probably at the top of the list for "incompetence that killed US soldiers"
This is a comedy not real life. I was at LLNL and we developed weaponry back in the 80s that is still used today.
Certainly, certainly...But did you use them personally?
@@yvesmorin2272look at Ukraine right now I am say those weapons are certainly being used.
This movie is a superb satire of the "military establishment", & the absurd & bureaucratic "top brass" metalities are spot on accurate, I imagine.
The movie may not be entirely accurate, regarding all the problems, cost over runs, & hasty redesign proposals of the Bradley armored vehicle, but I think the movie showcases well the "ignorant (& corrupt) children with power" image of "top level brass", which I suspect is much closer to reality than to fiction.
I read somewhere that they actually were looking at designing a dedicated troop carrier variant of the Bradley, increasing it's troop capacity, as intended from the first drawing board. It would be WILDLY ironic and wind up the cherry on this sundae of a movie if it's true.
I'm watching this in Ukraine . Glad it turned out 100 percent better than the original
@@UserUser-ww2nj FALSE... there was NEVER any issue with the Bradley, the movie is totally Hollywood make believe BS. Go watch "LazerPig's" video on this subject if you want the real story about what a mental patient and liar Burton was.
Bradley was designed from the start as an IFV, specifically to have a turret.
@@swatboy763 I know this, it had a simple 20mm autocannon instead of the 25mm, which had a much more beefy enclosure than what the original gun was mounted on.
@@swatboy763 I am always amazed that people think that stupid Hollywood movies are like "documentaries" and they get their information from them. So many of the 1di0ts making comments in here actually think this movie is true.
it is funny that the Bradley starts off as the striker. Then 40 years later, we have the striker again.
that is cause after all those upgrades they realized that they still needed a troop transport that could carry infantry
that being said they still are tossing turrets and cannons on the fucking thing
No, it starts of as M113-V2 (APC) and turns into an actual IFW, a new invention at the time, just like the Soviets did with there BMPs. Strykers are wheeled and not tracked.
Amanda Waller was really chill early in her career.
It’s so good, a square in U is named in its honour.
It’s only good because of the changes that were made to it.
Burton had been working in weapons procurement for over a decade at this point and was known to have pushed his own projects forward for kickbacks.
You mean a Lt Col had more kickbacks than the Generals .... lol.
The fact that he was retired ... explains all.
@AnzaChannel123 no but he was as dirty as they come. He also lied about every part of the Bradley development process in his book and the film got it even more wrong. And yes a lt col got a lot of kickbacks, just like col McGregor is currently receiving from RT and the russian government.
He also didn't fight against the bloated system, he was very much a part of that system. His claim that the us army messed with the test is bs, blowing up a Bradley doesn't tell you anything. Leaving inert ammo and water in the fuel tanks let's them see vulnerable areas. But he was too stupid to understand that. The army realized pretty quickly that he wasn't worth the time he was wasting and opted to transfer him.
Finally the Bradley wasn't over budget, it was under budget, and delivered early, and is still considered one of the best ifvs in the world. And no that's not because of him, it's in spite of him. The military never adopted any of his recommendations, never used any of his advice. And Israel has never purchased a single Bradley as they were developing their own ifv at the time. That part of the movie was a lie.
Ok i get your points. But you are accusing another Col .... are your CIA, Military Intelligence, NSA etc are sleeping ? or you are more informed than them somehow ? ;)
Bud the bad people don't get fired just the good people...
Well bhrton resigned so i guess hes not good people lmao
Great movie !!
Absolutely brilliant documentary on military development and procurement. The only surprise is that Boeing were not involved.
If you were familiar with the slap on the back revolving door, the names are there
just working for Lockheed
Dude, this is a satire... It's a mockery of lies Burton told in his book...
"we fought a revolution so we didn't have to listen to the British anymore".
Col. Burton "well, I AM British, so you're gonna have to listen some more".
A lovely reminder for everyone that the reformers (which burton is a part of) don’t understand what role the Bradley (and other modern equipment) is supposed to play, and measure the effectiveness of an new system with the same Metric as the old, despite the fact that warfare changed and the new equipment plays a now different role
Lessons in Nam don't apply to a post BVR world
I'm only 30 minutes into this movie and it's cracking me up! Not because it's outlandish but it's what I'd expect from a bunch of pentagon politicians pretending they are military officers. Thanks for putting this movie up!❤
You know that almost all of this movie was a lie, right?
@@matthewjones39 Yes. It's just a fun work of fiction.
Gotta love how the Ukraine War has vindicated the Bradley.
No it didn't, just proved Soviet stuff is trash
@@xephael3485 you just proved his point. You make the spec to what you're fighting against.
@Beaver.17 not at all... They didn't know what they were fighting against and Ukraine has been decades down the road after they spent billions more retrofitting and correcting the design
you mean a state of the art multi billion dollar project is better than a 1960s BTR designed to withstand 7.62 fire on a shoestring budget? wow!
Yes the Russians lost without the US firing a shot. Yay.
Hey! This is the music lazerpig uses!
This reminds me 100% of software development... to the T. This is my worst nightmare of a project.
nah bro in software development, the other developers are not trying to kill you.
0:23 Based on what came out about James G. Burton and the "Reformers". I don't believe it.
Wasn't Burton also part of the fighter mafia headed up by Colonel John Boyd?
@@christophergagliano2051 yep same with *cough cough* Mike Sparks
The satire in this movie is gold
It’s a good movie, despite all the misinformation and lies about the bradley, also a great satire on government and pentagon politics.
The movie says the truth about the Bradley. The current Bradley is not the same as the earlier Bradley manufactured between 1981 to 1988. The post 1988 improvements are thanks to Col. Burton here.
@@michaelotieno6524 no it does not say the truth about anything, most of the stuff in that movie that they made huge deal out are in real life non issue and most of the real issue the Bradley had where never raised by Burton, so no the later design we have of the Bradley is not thanks to Burton.
@@michaelotieno6524 Nope, it mostly lies about the Bradley - full of misinformation.
Kelsey is a genius at being a prick in this.
I remember being 15 when this movie was released on HBO. I love this movie. 'NOW LISTEN TO ME YOU FUCKIN FLY BOY YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT COMBAT!"
Literally the only part that is true. Burton knew nothing about combat.
@@whyhatholman3783the entire movie is satire bud
@@ayylmao182 . . . Obviously you don't know what 'satire' is.
Yknow the general guy has a good point about the tests. They literally can’t afford to just blow up everything, so the thing like water in the tank to show if it penetrates and other things like that is a way to not completely blow it up.
And leaning about the actual background, yeah I can see why this movie pisses people off
Also a point the movie missed - that sometimes a weapon with minor defects is better than an out of date weapon and the US army had no effective IFV prior to the Bradley which put the troops at a big disadvantage - delaying essential weapons can also get people killed. I mean imagine if the Gulf war was fought only with Abrams and M113's? I think the movie was overly harsh to General Partridge.
Ifv not tank.
The Bradley was already way over delayed and over budget. What are you talking about?
@@flashgordon6670 LMAO, bradley was under budget. the program costed around 8 billion, while 12 billion was the expected cost
@@flashgordon6670The Bradley was under budget. Don’t use a comedy movie from the 80s as a source.
Winning wars does not pay the bills, sustained wars pay the bills
Exactly. If one looks like it will come to an end another one is already being started.
Great movie, fantastic actors!
I remember all the controversy surrounding this vehicle. Turned out to be very successful and well liked by it's crews. The Ukrainians love them.
I suspect that the Bradley is the most popular piece of armour to end up in Ukraine, but it's addition to the Western armour graveyard in Moscow is probably it's most impressive gig...
@@psalmno.51 At least there is something left to display other than a charred husk.
@@bobwoods1302 Agreed... they all burn and the Abrams in Moscow hadn't even been cleaned up before it was put on display! In fact, the video segment I watched showed the channel author get his hands dirty as he touched it. Armour of all kinds ends up burnt in Ukraine, including the "invincible" turtle tank, which is almost impossible to stop!
@@psalmno.51 Russian tank turrets have more hours in the air than the Russian air force. 😂 Slava Ukraine.
@@bobwoods1302 I have no idea what you mean, but your reply sounds like a snappy soundbite. Have you watched the (free on UA-cam) foreign language film White Tiger? If you haven't, may I recommend it? It has English subtitles but looks at the life of a tank crew in WW2, among other things. Spoiler alert... the T-34 doesn't do so well in the film!
This movie is so stupid 😭 I love it
Love this film so much it’s silly! 😂❤
This movie wasn’t silly number one. It should’ve never been deemed a comedy because we have shit like this going on all the time and the people high Dollar generals they’re not the ones getting their skin burn off their body, arms, and legs torn off. It’s the guy and the women were suffering because of their desire to have a nicer lifestyle by taking payoffs
@@jimmungai1938 It is silly, it was literally paid for by people who think that the military should still be using the M113 and M1 Patton.
This is the best performance from Cary Elwes I've seen. I would love to see him in more dramatic and serious roles.
Have you seen Burning at Both Ends? Brilliant performance from him in a solid dramatic role.
A first class movie, right up there with the 'Yes Minister' series, thank you.
A real shame about Col Burton being forced to retire.
Sometimes real men have to as the Romans put it, "fall on ones sword" as I know from 'practical' experience, & Col Burton was (I hope still is) one such man.
I do hope he found a good a for filling life after the great service he performed.
He wasn't forced. The air force transfered him, but he refused and decided to retire.
Dude he made most the shit up, this film is based off his book in which he lies multiple times and much of his story can't be backed up by any other source than him
This movie makes me think about the Mark 14 torpedo that had a nasty habit of exploding too soon or too late if it didn't made a 180 degree turn after launch and attacked the sub that had launched it. Yet the bureau of ordinance kept on saying that there was nothing wrong with it and that the 'accidents' were caused by the crew, not following protocol. No kidding.
What a cast, heck of a set of story telling.
Col. Burton's speech about the M16 is so heavily false. The M16 was probably they most tested rifle to ever be tested by any military. And the testing was made to make that rifle fail, and it succeeded every part. The reason why the rifle was so bad, is because old school general made I that the barrels were not chrome lined, and that the powder that was used in the 5.56 was not suitable for the climate in Vietnam. Once those issues were corrected, it became a really good rifle.
Yeah, the entire movie is fiction.
I'd like to point out that the movie doesn't even depict the book it's based upon.
I'll point that out again, because a lot of people in these comments are playing dumb about it. The Book that Burton wrote, and this movie supposedly about that book, are COMPLETELY different.
@@MaxxCoyote Man, I am glad the top comments are taking this movie to task. It is a complete work or fiction and the result of lies from a weird internal propaganda group trying to shovel their own extremely poor military doctrine.
@@Rostifurd People seem to keep forgetting, or just don't know somehow, that not only is this an HBO produced COMEDY, but it came out in 1998 for christ's sake.
And again, the events in the film aren't what Burton wrote about anyway. Plus, not only is his book around to be read, not only can you look up his complete joke of a plane (the rejection of which is what chapped his ass so badly) but you can even find a transcript of what I believe was his congressional testimony.
Put simply....
1. Burton wasn't appointed by congress.
2. He came up with the "Joint testing" idea, and pitched it. The navy and airforce said no, but the army agreed.
3. The biggest argument was that Burton wanted to load the Bradley up and hit it with an anti-tank weapon. To which the army went "No need, we already know what will happen. It'll blow up."
Because of fucking course it would. At no time, or point, was the Bradley supposed to be able to shrug off an anti-tank round. Burton wanted to blow it up, blow a lot of them up actually, but never got around to pointing out what the fuck doing so was supposed to tell anyone. What data would be gathered and how, as they poured over the smoking, burning wreckage, were they supposed to learn ANYTHING other than "It blew up"
Finally, the Bradley isn't an ACP, "Just a troop carrier". It's an IFV, Infantry fighting vehicle. It's supposed to get you there, offer covering fire and support, and then do other shit.
Which it's apparently done very well, given that it's still in service as of 2024.
And everything I've just said is pretty much public record and easy to find. Because I'm not some military expert, or historian who did loads of research.
@firebat2120 . . . What you say is total BS. Were YOU in Vietnam? . . . I was - in 1968 and 1969.
Those frickin' early M-16s jammed and jammed and jammed every time a little piece of sand got into them. It had NOTHING to do with chrome barrels or unsuitable powder. After they redesigned the M-16s they worked fine. And now the kids have AR-15a to play with.
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Closing Time' by Joseph Heller - a sequel to Catch-22. This film is remarkably cohesive with that storyline. With much finer tolerances and successful tests than the original Bradley program.
Just found this good movie on military waste and self delusion. The corrected version of the Bradley did well but it’s not what was had in mind first design time. I remember ricocheting off this kind of ministry foolishness myself when serving.
Why are people in the comments taking it so seriously? It's a movie. Lighten up people. Pretend your parents loved you!
Yeah but it's based kinda real events, only that the tank was actually good, and the main character irl was a dumbass and today works for Russian propaganda media cause got fired
@@RogueBeatsARGIt’s an IFV, not a tank.
@@matthewjones39 I know, was generalizing
No.
@@matthewjones39 . . . A rose by any other name is a rose and if it has a trunk, it's an elephant, not a hippopotamus.