The Problem With Pentagon Wars

Pentagon Wars, a movie centering around the troubled development of the M2 / M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, is fairly popular in the Armored Fighting Vehicle community. In reading the book written by Colonel James Burton, I think that people should take both the movie and his memoir with a pile of salt. Burton belongs to a think tank group called the "Reformers", which to be quite frank is a lot of people making outdated and misinformed ideas / claims. Burton's recollection of the Bradley program is incorrect and further distorted by the movie.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Blade Runner (1997 game, Frank Klepacki) - Blade Runner Blues
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sources:
The Bradley and how it Got that Way, Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army - W. Blair Haworth
The Pentagon Wars, Reformers Challenge the Old Guard - James Burton
NSIAD-87-40 Bradley Vehicle: Army's Efforts To Make It More Survivable
NSIAD-92-94 Operation Desert Storm: Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams
A182777 Army Acquisition System vs. The Media
Bradley: A History of American Fighting and Support Vehicles - R.P. Hunnicutt
Department of Defense Appropriations for 1984
Defense Department Authorization and Oversight Hearings on H.R. 4428, Department of Defense Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1987
The Reformers - John T. Correll
The Reformers - Fred Reed
Army Volume 35 - 1985
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#tanks #tankhistory #pentagonwars

[@Spookston]

Dunno if I'm gonna have a video out this Saturday, very busy with some family stuff right now. Some other things I forgot to mention: -The Army claims it would take a shaped charge between 100-150mm in diameter to create significant vaporific effects in aluminum -Vaporifics were not a casualty creator in Vietnam on the M113 -Reformers also tried to claim that aluminum would catch fire from being shot -Reformers claimed the M1 was incapable of fighting with the engine off -One reformer also claimed that no one could fit in the M1 after failing to adjust the driver's seat to a lower position -Steel also has vaporific properties, just not as much as aluminum -Pretty much the only character that actually existed in the Pentagon Wars movie was Colonel Burton -Rumanian is technically a way to spell Romanian but I still think it's kind of dumb

[@Coremann43]

I never understood that. The Bradley is bad because its made of aluminum but the M113 is god but is also made out of aluminum.

[@TheArklyte]

It's good to know it's all blown out of proportion and proper turretless APC on Bradley chassis wasn't delivered to army only a month ago several decades after the movie, "Reformers" and USSR stopped being good excuses. 80 more years and you'd get a proper SPAAW too!

[@jusavisa]

If anyone wants a book that's more balanced then Pentagon Wars about the Bradley, it exists, called The Bradley and How It Got That Way,written by Blair Haworth in 1999. Basically a full history of all the twists and turns though I'd say it's in the end a bit more pro Bradley then maybe it needed to be.

[@TheArklyte]

@@Coremann43 M113 was IFV? Maybe HAPC? But it was basis for armored vehicles of all types, roles and functions. That's why Bradley didn't replace it either.

[@lucasguia6030]

@@TheArklyte the M113 with a turret is disgusting

[@fantasticgoatac4780]

No no, he’s right. Romanian RPGS have Higher Penetration capabilities because Priests throw Holy Water on them.

Appease the machine spirit!

[@codemy666]

You mean Rumenian?

[@許進曾]

@ not without the holy oil.

[@antirambles]

But Russians do the same thing....

[@zaidanmujahid6567]

@ Ah A Fellow Mechanicus I see

[@alexandercarr5712]

Don't forget about the time when the reformers tried to prove that the F15 was trash by pitting them against F5's in the following conditions: - All engagements are daytime - All engagements must be at visual range(no AMRAAMs), and all targets must be visually identified - Ground control site could not be attacked (apparently they were needed to guide the F5s to the F15s) After all this, they promptly went to the press and declared that the F15 had been 'fought to a standstill' by the F5, despite the kill ratio being 2.5 in favor of the F15. Ultimately, these reformers seem to have convinced themselves that the only way war will ever be fought was the way WW2 was.

[@becauseiwasinverted5222]

ACEVAL AIMVAL was not reformer sponsored afaik but yes they did tout the results around

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

Oh no not the infamous (and throughly discredited) Red Baron report.

[@piotrd.4850]

They were not wrong. For one reason or another, BVR missiles didn't have amazing hit rate back then and RoE currently limit aircraft to fights WVR. In 'near peer' conflict it should be different but again ... Sparrow could hardly be called success back then and AMRAAMs had issues with solid fuel. Just look on USN's experience with F-14 - bascially, Sidewinder good, Sparrow bad, Phoneix .... uhm.... too expensive to be fired more than 1 or 2 times per squadron per year and did it have any combat success?

[@The_Seeker]

And the response was to issue the requirements for the LWF, which evolved into the F-16. Much cheaper to produce, almost as effective, produced in much larger numbers, and exported with far more success. It was the "reformers" who agitated for the creation of the F-15 in the first place after the catastrophic combat record of the F-4, and when the F-15 evolved into an aircraft much heavier and expensive than they had originally envisioned, they agitated again for a lightweight fighter.

[@Calvin_Coolage]

@@The_Seeker I'm sorry, did you just say the F-4's combat record was catastrophic?

[@EmonWBKstudios]

BACK IN MY DAY, WE DIDN'T HAVE FANCY SCHMANCY TANKS, WE HAD 2 STICKS AND A ROCK! AND WE HAD TO SHARE THE ROCK!

[@motmot8879]

FOR THE WHOLE PLATOON

[@Seth9809]

Lawl.

[@oldgeezer6716]

ROCKS? STICKS? EXPENSIVE. ROCK HEAVY AND STICK BREAK SPIT AT ENEMY. INFINITE AMMO AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE.

[@CHEESYHEAD684]

Thanks for the tank...'he' never gives me anything

[@ncpdswordshielddivision2240]

Back IM the day I remember we only Had Legs and Hands for weapons

[@JeffTheBunnySlayer]

“Ah yes, the ship could not withstand an anti ship missile. Write that down, Mike.”

[@gopniksaurolophus6354]

"Nah I think that was a fluke, lets hit it with a bigger one." "Spot on, bro, let me make a few calls."

[@paulmahoney7619]

“If you shoot a destroyer with a missile meant to cripple carriers, it goes down. Amazing, clearly it’s junk.”

[@tbotalpha8133]

...At least you know your anti-ship missiles work, right? ...Right?

[@casual_speedrunner1482]

“My body armor couldn’t withstand a 20mm anti-tank rifle. Run it again!”

[@bigbrainenergyguy]

Not just any ship, a ship that costs BILLIONS of dollars. And he has the gall to call out the pentagon for cost overruns...

[@coffee4682]

“The M48 is more survivable than the M1” Which M1? The helmet, the Garand, the Carbine, the armored car, the Abrams, the bayonet, the flamethrower, the mortar, the sub machine gun, the howitzer, the dual purpose battery, the underwater gun, the AA gun, the shotgun, the US designation for the QF 6 pounder, or the rocket launcher? In my opinion, I think the M48 is more reliable than the underwater pistol, but that’s just me.

[@nyxian4832]

Hey what about the A1

[@navysealinguardiantank2679]

@@nyxian4832 the steam loco class or the road?

[@ZFilms1946]

@@nyxian4832 I like A1 on my steak

[@gordonlandreth9550]

The M - 48 was a good tank , until the M - 60 came along . The driver compartment was built for a 10 year old girl . The turret did not hold enough ammo to make a sandwich .

[@monarchtherapsidsinostran9125]

I just love the statement of reliability of the m48 vs the abrams because the m48 wouldn't even see a abrams or t72 before it was shot. XD

[@chasebh89]

"guns?? Bah, overpriced expensive garbage. My soldiers should train with swords, like men" >Bradly can't survive a nuke Junk

[@331coolguy]

"Radar?!! Pfff why can't they use there eyes to see things a hundred miles away and flying at high speeds stupid."

[@theread3480]

Swords? Thats overpriced junk that requires too many blacksmiths. We should just use our fists, we’re born with them so we don’t need to pay for them

[@fsdds1488]

Good sword are way too expensive compaired to guns, lets just resort to slings.

[@lifeless9768]

we should test if our soldiers can withstand artillery fire

[@brightenight8699]

@@theread3480 it's weird to think that caesar from fallout new vegas also came to that conclusion

[@Tronathon242]

That Blitzfighter design looks like something the Luftwaffe would have cooked up in late 1944. Images of the Salamander and the Hunchback leapt right out of the depths of my mind when I saw the concept. It would also seem that these guys were interested in the strategy employed by the Galactic Empire: swarm the enemy with cheap units that lacked any extravagant bells or whistles.

[@paulmahoney7619]

I wonder if the Reformers have as much meth as the Nazis.

[@scottishguy8148]

@@paulmahoney7619 as terrible late war German designs were at least most could sometimes work.

[@innosam123]

No, they ate up the Stalin quote that ‘quantity is a quality all of its own’- ignoring all the broken-down T-34s from poor quality builds, of course.

[@1rbdt]

Imperial TIE fighters were at least reasonably matched against X-Wings in dogfighting. The Blitzfighter would face so many things that could shred it that it's not even funny... OK, maybe a little bit funny

[@johnfrancisterne1072]

The TIE fighter at least had radars, tracking and targeting sensors, a viable life support system, and everything that any starfighter could need, save a shield and hyperdrive system

[@vandelayofficial492]

Pentagon Wars is a fun movie, but people need to remember that it is purely a movie, not a 60 Minutes expose or a documentary.

[@UnfittingCarbon]

Considering the bullcrap 60 minutes has put out, that wouldn't really have been a compliment in my book.

[@colincampbell767]

And even 60 Minutes needs to be taken with a gain of salt. They are not going to give you the whole story - just the facts that fit their editorial position.

[@Bialy_1]

@@colincampbell767 And after Bradley they wasted another 20 billions on R&D and in Afganistan US soldiers were using Polish Rosomak that they were borowing from Polish Army... Did Poland wasted 20 billions on R&D of this vehicle? Nope, boland just bought license from Finland and some small modifications to it. Wet uniforms to have pure data? Are you kidding me? then why put this uniforms there if not for the exact reason that we saw in "the pentagon wars"? Water tank in the middle of vehicle... without checking i can bet good money that during test they were aiming directly at it to make fireextinguisher out of it... and on battlefield enemmy would do everything to not hit that spot for exatly the same reason...

[@colincampbell767]

@@Bialy_1 Sounds like you have no idea what the Bradley was made for. The Bradley was designed to operate as mart of a Mechanized to Armored combat team. It was designed for the 'big fight' against an enemy with similar capabilities to ourselves. And why did we do this? Because these types of forces are 'general purpose' combat units. And yes the Bradley's were not needed in Afghanistan. However - the specialist vehicles/leased/borrowed/made for Afghanistan would up either being given back or scrapped. And those soldiers are now back on Bradley's and re-trained back into 'general purpose' forces. BTW: 'Pentagon Wars' was a _movie_ and was not an accurate description of what happenned - or why. And you have no idea as to what data they were trying to collect. Without that information - you have no idea whether 'wet uniforms' was necessary for the data the test was trying to gather. And you think you're an 'expert' because you watched a movie. A movie that was about 70% BS.

[@jwenting]

problem is it's often presented as factual, just like Discovery Channels "hunting bigfoot" program that they listed as being a documentary when it was in fact pure fiction.

[@AltPollux]

Pierre Sprey hasn't held a defense-related position since the 80's, and is now a jazz record producer. Yet he's still one of the most sought after "expert" when someone wants to write a clickbait article shitting on the F-35.

[@kilianortmann9979]

And when interviewed it sounds like he created the F-16 by himself after seeing the plans in a burning bush or something. IIRC all he did was accidentally stopping some feature creep and maybe causing some weight control measures.

[@Mugdorna]

And the entire mantra of “not a pound for air-to-ground” in relation to the F15 program has been debunked by the superb F15E which is in demand all over the World.

[@DeadEndGoose]

He was sought after by foreign media. RIP tho, I guess

[@NymbusCumulo928]

Dude fuck the F-35 it's 100 million per jet

[@danlorett2184]

And then he shit all over the F-22... until it proved to be miles ahead of any other air superiority fighter, then he decided to take credit for it even though he had NOTHING AT ALL to do with it.

[@Taskandpurpose]

awesome video! the Pentagon Wars gave the Bradley a bad name for a long time even I believed it was all true. Still a funny great film that's satire is emblematic of the bureaucracy inherent in military weapons procurement.

[@beowulf9878]

The problem was Burton’s ideas weren’t modular.

[@novanoir8309]

Well i can just love the movie for the comedy's. Other than that we can always separate fiction and reality

[@cheesecakedoublepeanutbutt6511]

people can't tell difference between fiction and reality

[@booradley6832]

To be fair, Omar Bradley literally gave the vehicle a bad name. Guy was a douchebag.

[@kasra7907]

The movue was great over the years weve sine thing like it haprn ehith ptograms like the f35.

[@carsnbikes914]

shoutout to that centauro around the 5:30 mark, he couldve easily killed that tank but saw that it was yours

[@FrostyWheats]

if only more people would act like that

[@carsnbikes914]

@@pillprincessCN thats my boyfriend 😳

[@slk7376]

@@pillprincessCN BACK OFF HES MINE🤬😡😠

[@rolan4dezwinz381]

@@FrostyWheats Sorry, but Gaj’s grind demands that any kill you see is fair gain. If they aren’t helping you grind for a vehicle, then you got nothing to lose from claiming it.

[@FrostyWheats]

rolan4 dezwinz well, no. Thats only during events where progression is dependent on kills. In WT you also get points (= sl and rp) for “assisting” a teammate. This could be by damaging a component or, if they’re your squaddie, by being near them. And fun fact, Gaijin caps the multiplier on your kills after like four or five so its just as useful to you to assist someone as it is to kill an enemy at that point. This is why if I see someone about to kill an enemy tank I always shoot out the barrel, track or engine for the kill assist. Could I have stolen the kill? Yeah. Should you? No. There are better alternatives

[@ianbirge8269]

I only saw the movie after being in the Army, so I took it as obvious satire of the bureaucracy. Thanks for the real history.

[@s.a928]

And thank you for your service.

[@Silax77]

@@s.a928 Smooth

[@Karl-Benny]

what makes this real

[@LosBerkos]

@@s.a928 Nauseating.

[@agnidas5816]

@@Karl-Benny exactly ... some kid making shit up ... and people eat it up lol

And thus 'Colonel Burton' would be immortalised in the 2003 computer game Command & Conquer Generals, playing a bare-chested Rambo-like character not hindered by any sense of tactics.

[@ANDREALEONE95]

Oh, the irony.

[@LtCWest]

At least that bad ass got shit done ^^

[@youmukonpaku3168]

*2002 computer game, 1999 was Command & Conquer Tiberian Sun, the one with James Earl Jones in it.

[@gaizokubanou]

I did paper on Bradley development during my time in college, and single biggest problem is that people in general didn't understand the requirements for the vehicle (and the role of IFV in general). Basic premise is that it's a vehicle that carries troop and fights alongside the troops and the tanks, adding mobility and firepower to the troops they are carrying. Issue is that there's this confusion in the "fight alongside the tanks", that people got the impression that if it doesn't hold up to M1's standard, it's a failure... while wishing it can be amphibious, cheaper than M1, kill the tanks head on, etc. I think there is a separate discussion to be had about whether concept of IFVs are perhaps little too 'light', but that's a conceptual level discussion, not of specific vehicle that is planned for a specific requirement.

[@Morrigi192]

IFVs and APCs seem to be getting heavier these days anyway, at least partially due to the increasing effectiveness of artillery.

[@Ato-3000J]

You got balls to make an essay on an armored vehicle for college. You don’t see students arguing about APCs in my school. How did it went?

[@kireta21]

Easy way to explain purpose of IFV and why it is what it is, is to take piece of paper, and draw a battle, going into details how attack is planned and executed, and how other side can defend and counter such attack. It applies to pretty much any equippment used, because weapons are designed around role they're suppose to fulfill.

[@Ato-3000J]

@@kireta21 nice. It a just out of normal most of the schools would not be interested in that. So it is weird to make an essay on that. And for example, myself, I keep my knowledge for myself.

[@HaloFTW55]

Reminder that Soviet troops coveted the Shermans every chance they get. The M4 was more ergonomic and easier to use than T-34s

[@ratbaby3107]

"A group that says that the US military just wants to throw men and money at problems" Yeah, fair, okay "So they want to send them with outdated equipment" Okay you lost me

[@jebusman56]

Did you purposefully add a clip of the Bradley gunning down a CAS plane to mock Burton's own proposal for the Blitzfighter?

[@reid1283]

Probably not but that’s about how a Blitzcan vs Bradley would go lol

[@Seth9809]

Like the flying Gavin, Sparky loves or?

[@BungieStudios]

I think that was a one off coincidence.

[@johntorreto4485]

So in a Nutshell the movie reverses the roles of who are the Idiots?

[@lightn2783]

Pretty much

[@patchmoulton5438]

That... really doesnt surprise me

[@Marinealver]

Real Life Combat tends to show the truth over Hollywood Military movies.

[@mohammadshehada267]

Not of idiots but for Now level of genes (smart)

[@TheGamerAdventurersX]

@@Marinealver you mean hollywood military fanfics?

[@501strookie]

I've maintained that Pentagon Wars is to the Bradley what Death Traps was to the Sherman. A piece of media that people took as gospel and as a result, slapped a perfectly good vehicle with a bad reputation.

[@looinrims]

The difference between them is that Cooper just had a narrow view on the Sherman due to his wartime experience Pentagon wars is just a fucking joke of a movie and the reformer weirdos deserve to be shot in the balls so they don’t infect the rest of the world

[@Zorro9129]

Is Death Traps wrong, though?

[@looinrims]

@@Zorro9129 death traps is wrong about the most survivable tank of the war being a death trap, but regardless death traps should be seen as nothing more than it is, a memoir, it’s one soldiers experience of the war, just like Guderian’s memoirs just like mansteins just like everyone else’s

[@KuK137]

Sherman being good vehicle? Lol, maybe compared to first versions of Pz IV or T-34. So, in 1939. Compared to later versions it was trash, USA was just lucky 95% of the panzers and all the best crews were fighting soviets, and when it had 20:1 advantage in numbers it could (barely) win...

[@looinrims]

@@KuK137 compared to any version of the panzer 4 or T-34, with superior (or equivalent in case of t34) effective armor, a thicc cock 76mm when it was around, disgustingly overpowered HVAP ammo, better radios, ergonomics, better everything Also you fucking donut tanks don’t operate alone they operate in groups of 5 at minimum in WW2 organizations, lone tanks get rekt Also US wartime army reports showed that in actual tank engagements their numbers were averaging 1.2 to 1 because no one goes to war hoping for a fair fight, and still they were clapping tigers, ferdinands, and panthers Fucking hell the M3 Lee was equivalent to the panzer 4 in North Africa and you mean to tell me that only the A-D models of the panzer 4 are inferior to the M4? Did you actually read about the anything you’re talking about? No, no you didn’t

[@yourlocalasleeponioperativ4095]

“I can think of a few issues of this idea” _proceeds to play the proof of why the plane is going to get fucked_

[@robin6469]

Ngl it sounds like this guy was deliberately trying to sabotage American arms development, and I think it's absolutely hilarious.

[@henrycooper3431]

Guess they didnt care to look at Vietnam war and thought shits was already too good

[@zefflin1451]

He was obviously a Soviet spy

[@seanmac1793]

@@henrycooper3431 god I can’t imagine what bullshit he must have spewed about the M16

[@Dimetropteryx]

Plenty of sabotage going on in the whole project cancelling circus.

[@ArcturusOTE]

@@zefflin1451 Or a spy from a rivaling defense company

[@Resentius]

Glad to see that numbskull Pierre Sprey and his crew getting some well deserved flak. His recent articles have fully convinced me that he hasn’t actually been doing anything for the past twenty years and is still going on the assumption that everything still exists as it did twenty years ago when he was somewhat relevant.

[@TheMonkeytrumpetz]

Not true, he’s been making hip jazz music

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

Just a correction,the time when he was somewhat relevant was 45 years ago.

[@Resentius]

@@naamadossantossilva4736 Yup. I was just being kind.

[@juliannestingray5948]

@@Resentius now that's really hurt.

[@gotanon8958]

Well your 3 decades late he got debunked in the early 90's because of his combat prediction and how they were supposed to performe the desert gulf happaned....

[@cattledog901]

Ah the "Reformers".. the flat earthers of US military technology.

[@gomezgomez6299]

The Qanon dmb fks

[@altoclan21]

T-rex in tomcat?

[@Menhadien]

So this video is the first I've heard of them, but they sound pretty brain dead. Historically, smaller, but more technologically advanced, forces have been able to defeat larger forces thanks to a variety of force multipliers. However there is value in having cheap, easy to manufacture and maintain equipment as well as . Look at development during WWII, almost every nation moved away from more complex equipment to simpler.

[@joeharazim6758]

Anyone know of other videos going into depth on reformers? That was very interesting

[@Menhadien]

@phantom killer087 I would argue that no one has sufficient stockpiles for a non-nuclear, total war. Maybe the Russians did during the height of the cold war. But both WWI and WWII showed that no nation had sufficient stockpile of arms and munitions. Personal anecdote, I was in the US Navy (Electronics Technician), the lead times for some of our parts (both new and old) were measured in years, most of them in several months. From my experience, the modern military supply system for complex electronics is struggling during peacetime.

[@RA9935]

"The M48 is more survivable than the M1" - Pierre Sprey Me: Alright Pierre, lets try it.

[@ronaldthompson4989]

Put him in the 48 XD

[@JBGARINGAN]

"Ya need to build the vehicle out of steel not this composite plastic foam shit ye call chobham armor." -him probably

[@airplanenut89]

I can't find the report but it was from a project where Sprey was in contact with the USN, and they basically summed him up as saying he has trouble understanding reality.

[@Bialy_1]

So why exactly they made so many changes to the M1 armor if there was nothing wrong with it? There is zero logic in this video. Water tank above the crew was most likely used as a target during testing and that is why it was "cheating" as your enemmy will obviously try to not shot that area... Whole story about wet unifirms to get pure data? hah, you can take 6 armor plates weld it and make a cube and shot at it if u want "pure data"... clearly someone was faking that the vehicle is safe. All the money wasted and time before and after this guy retired...

[@airplanenut89]

@@Bialy_1 Are you referring to the M1 Abrams MBT or the M2 Bradley IFV?

[@henryfleischer404]

So the reformers are like the traditionalists that the British navy had at the end of the age of sail?

[@seanmac1793]

Well it grew out the movement from the Vitenam era reform movement where people like James Boyd who Perrie spray claims to carry the torch from advocated for relegating things like the aim 7 and just using aim9s, vast oversimplification and just from memory, they did this by heing extremely knowledgeable about what they were doing and there was lots of technical math involved

[@michaelmccabe3079]

Nope. The British Navy Traditionalists at the end of the sail age were more receptive to cutting-edge turbine engines. The reformers are the guys arguing for horse archers in the age of gunpowder and plate armor.

[@qasimmir7117]

There’s no such thing as a ‘British Navy.’ It’s the Royal Navy dear boy.

[@kevincho1187]

Soviets: have one of the best anti air systems like the s 400 and tunguska. Burton: "LeTS foOKiNG kamIKAze TheM"

[@vanukas8783]

I see this as an absolute win

"One of the best"....Radar equivalent to 2nd stage 1960's NATO gear. Can't even tell a civilian airliner at 10K meters from a jet fighter at 3K meters. Well sure Sergei, whatever bullshit helps you sleep at night. By all means believe a radar from half a century ago that may, by accident, hit a plane, is 'one of the best'. I'm sure that in Russia, it is.

[@vasiliymedvedev1532]

@ uh tunguska wasn't created for long range anti air and also give source

[@kevincho1187]

@ keep talking, look i understand russia isnt the best, but wheres your proof that the s 400, tunguska, hell even the fucking igla, is shit. you probably just look at the 9k35 and the osa and think man, soviet aa sucks. but sure, keep saying empty words

[@kevincho1187]

@@vasiliymedvedev1532 yeah he only adresses the tunguska not the buk or s400 system

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

2:15 In Vietnam light guns were the most effective form of AA.Burton designed a plane that would have no option but present itself to them. It is as stupid as a tank with no floor and glacis.

[@ANDREALEONE95]

Blitz fighert looks something like the average simplified german jet near the end of the war, but modernized.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

Funny thing about that.... All the reformers have some fetish for the German military. William Lind is OBSESSED with Germany, it’s culture, and its military performance in the 1870s and early WW2. Kind of forgetting a critical detail: the Germans lost!

[@siem3113]

@@nobodyherepal3292 Not to mention the fact the thing that made Germany successful in the wars early years was usually not just better tactics, but overwhelming artillery and air power that was technologically capable at the very least. And when the Allies pushed the Germans back out of europe they were the ones inheriting this advantage. So putting yourself on the backfoot with inferior gear is dangerous.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

@Dangerous Joy they most certainly did lose on the battlefield. Many times. El Alimain, Stalingrad, St Lo, Bastogne, ect.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

I disagree. A lot of German tactics resulted in more casualties then needed, and a lot of there ideas were based around there technological and industrial issues. -focusing squads around a machine gun sounds good, but really, it means if the machine gun is taken out the squad just lost 30% of its firepower -limited munition production means artillery can’t be used en-mass, so it has to be concentrated and rationed carefully. No increasing gun caliber will help that. -most of there early tanks were out matched by allied vehicles, meaning maneuver and flanking was a must if they wanted to win, but it lead to high vehicle losses in direct engagements -and by the time the “big cats” came along, there way to complicated to be serviced and supplied effectively on the front lines, adding more unneeded logistical strain; there combat effectiveness be damned.

[@TacticalOkuu]

Pentagon Wars was a dramatized satire and a poor representation of the book and is now the only way people can insult the Bradley. And oh god... Sprey... Don't remind me of... *him*

[@MrElis420]

Just sucks when you see former Bradley crewmen reference the movie. Like guys come on lol

[@TheTrueAdept]

It's... surprisingly spot on I'm afraid. Burton basically lied about the entire thing.

[@TacticalOkuu]

@@MrElis420 I had a teacher in high school talk to me about how he rode those in Desert Storm and loved em, I'd ask him all about what they did in terms of combat. However the Bradley is not an APC and never was, boomers saw anything with troop carrier capabilities as one before the concept of the IFV became a worldwide standard for military forces (similar to attack helicopters). Apparently a common thing I've heard is troops prefer Strykers when in an APC so idk.

[@TacticalOkuu]

@@TheTrueAdept Burton being Sprey but tanks is enough cringe but holy shit.

[@MrElis420]

@@TacticalOkuu I'd easily prefer being in a Stryker compared to a Bradley, but the Bradley is still good, and proven in combat just like the Stryker so idk as well. Both are great vehicles, I would call the Bradley an APC in a loose sense since it's armored, rated to withstand 14.5mm and up rounds today, and carries troops obviously, but still you're right it's an IFV.

[@jackzhang8677]

I don’t think Spookston emphasized enough the lunacy of Pierre Sprey. Pierre was a lobbyist in the “fighter mafia,” which tried to influence the design requirements of the F-16 and future fighter aircraft procurement. This group lobbied for newer fighters that emphasized maneuvering based on energy maneuverability theory, and deprioritize high tech radars and long range missiles. However, Pierre takes it a step further. He believes that radars should be removed entirely, only single engine fighters are necessary as two is over complicating things, and most profoundly, multi role aircraft are simply tasked with too many roles and are unable to perform any single role effectively. With that said, he has no problem with taking credit for the F-16, which he never helped design, even thought it is the most successful multi role aircraft to date and was specifically designed to be a multi role aircraft. The F-15, which he thought was over complicated, has the most successful air to air record of any modern fighter, and both the F-15 and F-16’s success can be partially attributed to their avionics and the formers high thrust from its dual engines. It goes without saying he despises the F-22 and F-35 despite in aerial combat exercises these two have been untouchable for legacy aircraft in full force on force engagements, a phenomenon that has never occurred before for modern jet powered fighters before. There is even a documented case of 5 F-15s against one F-22, and all piloted by pilots who transitioned from the F-15 to the F-22, meaning they had experience with both aircraft’s strength and weaknesses. The only thing that hampered the F-22 was running low on missiles after he defeated all his adversaries. Edit: while the F-22 has suffered some losses in such exercises, most were in highly constrained scenarios such as beginning at WVR and with guns only. I elaborate more in my response to Joe Blow.

[@joeblow5214]

The F-22 is great at BVR engagements but can be spanked in WVR as it has in simulated engagements with Rafaels and Typhoons. I love the plane but to imply it's invulnerable against 4th gen planes is inaccurate at best.

[@jackzhang8677]

@@joeblow5214 please provide one source where the F-22 was "spanked" by the Rafale and Typhoon. The often spoken of incidents will also often overlook the causalities the F-22 incurred to its opposition, and this is with the engagement parameters being highly constrained such as beginning at WVR with guns only. If we take a more realistic scenario such as beginning the engagement at BVR and then closing in, we get a much better picture. The reason the F-22 managed to down 5 F-15s with no issue is because he not only chose when to begin the dogfight, but had also forced the F-15s into defensive maneuvers that bled off their energy, allowing the F-22 to start the close range engagement with multiple advantages, and the option to back off if the situation wasn't favorable. At Red Flag, F-22s and F-35s outperformed opposing legacy aircraft even when the adversary aircraft had AWAC support. Claiming that the F-22 can be spanked because of a handful of losses in highly constrained environments is disingenuous. The widely circulated video of a Rafale versus an F-22 was one (highly constrained) engagement from several where the F-22 had also scored at least one air to air kill. If you want a full breakdown of the dogfight, here is a French Rafale pilot's take: kzbin.info/www/bejne/poelmZ9spr93hMk We don't have prospective of the F-22 pilot, so it's impossible to determine if the F-22 ever had the opportunity to gun the Rafale. This was a guns only fight, meaning that while both pilots could take simulated missile shots for their own experience, these would not be counted as valid kills. There are several times where the Rafale managed to get off a missile shot and without the opposing prospective, it is impossible to determine if the converse is true for the F-22. Additionally, this was several months after an F-22 crashed due to oxygen problems which unfortunately become a half decade long string of accidents which saw many flight envelope restrictions. While 5th gen fighters are not invincible (I am not claiming they cannot be shot down), they are a massive leap forward in capabilities which is demonstrated by their incredible survivability record in full force on force training such as Red Flag and Northern Edge where they are allowed a more realistic engagement scenario and where present day exercises see many of the previous restrictions lifted.

[@Guynumber7]

The F-16A actually was not BVR capable. Technically speaking, it would satisfy Sprey, but later once they started putting "useless junk" on it, he hated it.

[@jackzhang8677]

@@Guynumber7 the very first blocks did not have BVR capability but it was very quickly upgraded. The Block 25 F-16C used the AN/APG-68 which could guide the AIM-7 and AIM-120. Around the same time, the initial F-16A variant was retrofitted with upgrades so it’s AN/APG-66 radar when upgraded to the AN-APG-66v3 could guide the AIM-7 and AIM-120. This was done with the Block 20 aircraft, and it was every variant following these two that gave the F-16 its combat record.

[@gotanon8958]

The F-16 even the first block was BVR capable considering its radar had a cw illuminator. Ps.are jack zhang from qoura?

[@aaronslater470]

I always wondered about why Pentagon Wars talks about the Bradley being a successor to the M113. When everything else I've read stated the Bradley was a direct answer to the Soviet BMP1.

[@Shaun_Jones]

The problem is that the Bradley superficially looks like an upgraded 113. Compounding this problem is that both vehicles carry troops, so that’s the confusion.

[@danlorett2184]

I mean, the BMP-1 basically obsoleted troop carriers like the M113 (although the base vehicle is still used for a bunch of minor roles that it's still really good for). Which would you rather have, 8 unsupported infantry with whatever they are carrying, or 6 infantry with an IFV providing fire support?

[@fathead8933]

The MTV series of trucks and Stryker are the successors to the 113.

[@fathead8933]

@Dan Lorett this was my major issue with Stryker. It was a giant toothless target. It had a .50 or mk19 but in the vehicle realm, you might as well be shooting a rifle at things. Infantrymen would've been better off with uparmored hmmvws lighter, cheaper and 2 of them cost a 1/4 of the price and brought the same firepower to the fight. Only thing different that Stryker provided was an NBC filtration system that I never saw, and an MRE heater.

[@itaybron]

Col Berton from C&C Generals >>>> Col Berton in our world.

[@arsenalxa4421]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought that.

[@glacier4286]

*Burton

[@MrSadisticLlama]

Such a funny contrast if you think about it, since the Fake Video Game Berton used the most high tech and experimental aircraft around, while the Real Berton INSISTED that we use tiny little planes, with only a radio, a single gun, no missiles, or even a radar.

[@sweetballs4742]

That was left handed

[@Number1Rival]

Glad someone else knows about generals. Also no one: Not a soul: The Me 163 komet

[@raptor4916]

Arent the "Reformers" against precision-guided munitions? Also, the opening scene of the movie the bit about PAVEWAY really pissed me off

[@piotrd.4850]

Not when it work ;) However, you might not realise, then LGBs then and NOW are different things - they were obscenely expensive back than. That's why JDAM, as add -on package with reelatively cheap GPS/INS was such revolution: order of magnitude cheaper, weather immune and not dependant on continued target painting..... today, you can cheaply (enough) mount laser guidance on APWKS 76mm rockets and have lidar sensors in smartphones. 40-50 years ago it was NOT THAT simple. Also: there's one thing in maritime navigation, called navigation paradox. To extend you have the same precision-guided munitions: the more you realy on it, the more you actually rely on intelligence and recon. In WW II even if you missed completely, some bombs by sheer chance could have hit and detroy something else imporant. Not so with PGMs. For the most part they hit EXACTLY what you tell them to, and GOd help you when you were pointing wrong.. Reformers essentially protested reliance on too small number of too expensive superweapons - because weapoons are ment to be actually USED not conserved for "decisive battle" or "more high value target".

[@magni5648]

@@piotrd.4850 They weren't, though. Not when you took into account the sheer number of dumb bombs and airplance sorties needed to deliver them all that you needed to achieve the same actual effect on target. Even Vietnam-era LGBs were in fact extremely cost-efficient compared to unguided munitions.

[@classifiedad1]

@@magni5648 They even had TV-guided bombs. Conventional ordnance failed to score hits on the Thanh Hoa bridge near Hanoi, and the only reason why previous attempts with AGM-12 Bullpup missiles with a 250lb warhead and AGM-62 Walleye glide bombs with a 1,100lb warhead didn't kill the bridge was because the warheads weren't big enough. And that's less a failure of the system and more a testament to the French engineers who designed the bridge and the tenacity of the North Vietnamese forces to keep it up. Of course, they made the Walleye II with a literal ton of explosives and with conventional bombs, put an end to the bridge. And I believe one of the first combat actions of the F-16, which was envisioned as a light day fighter, was as a bomb truck utilizing a highly sophisticated bombsight to drop an unguided 2,000lb bomb through a window at the Osirak nuclear power plant in Iraq.

[@paulmahoney7619]

@@piotrd.4850 It's important to remember that all new tech is bad until someone puts in the effort and expense to refine it to be good.

[@bohba13]

... Reformers is the worst possible name for them. These guys are stuck in the past thinking obsolete solutions can solve new problems at every turn. Part of US military doctrine is to be on the cutting edge. Its what allows us to be a volunteer force. We have force multiplier after force multiplier after force multiplier and our guys depend on these things being the best we can get, without busting up logistics trains or being overly complicated. (Looking at you XM-25)

[@ANDREALEONE95]

after all they live in the same era that forced US to develop F-15 after the mess made in Vietnam.

[@SeaPhantom]

I'm instead thinking of the OICW lol. Surprised nobody in the development process thought "Hey, this thing might be a bit too heavy and complicated for the average soldier to use."

[@caav56]

@@SeaPhantom Interestingly enough, South Korea DID manage to develop a workable version of it - Daewoo K11. They've even got it in service back in 2010.

[@TheArklyte]

"It's what allows it to be a volunteer force." You heard that South Korea, it's not that yankees have 300+ million population and no border with North Korea and such neighbours as Russia and China, no, it's purely that their cutting edge is more cutting edge then cutting edge of everyone else... who's not stuck in late 80's to this day:\

[@MacCoalieCoalson]

South Korea has mandatory military service, though, at least I thought it did.

[@Redyqar]

Normal people: let's use technology and brain to make best thing possible. Reformers: "Klendathu drop" is peak strategy.

[@bastionaudio]

Yup, and this is why with unlimited money US losing military tech race

[@S3Cs4uN8]

@@bastionaudio It is comparatively easier to reach first place than it is to maintain first place. Whoever or whatever is on top has to continuously outperform everything below them, those below need only wait for the one on top to slip.

[@JBGARINGAN]

Revenge for Buenos Aires!

[@sld1776]

lol, no.

[@Kardia_of_Rhodes]

A-10: "Hahaa, my gun go brrrttttt!" F-35: "LOL, imagine actually needing line of sight to kill your target."

[@reidparker1848]

A-10: Ha, imagine not being able to fly

[@Bruh-td7ex]

@@reidparker1848 F-35: imagine accidentally killing your allies when you mistakely target them as enemies.

[@Bruh-td7ex]

​@@reidparker1848almost forgot, your kills are British troops and warriors ifv.

[@Joaosantos22114]

"Do you want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages saying, "I am a troop carrier, not a tank, please don't shoot at me"?" *Burton:* "YES!"

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

Somebody really needed to dangle Burton out of a window while daring him to say its a troop carrier not a tank one more time.

[@Joaosantos22114]

@TrueFact honestly the 25mm bushmaster is already enough of an excuse.

[@srinjoymandal458]

2:33 Spookston, damn this is good

[@Seth9809]

I saw this "The Pentagon Wars" get worshipped and praised for years on KZbin and other sites, and it drove me fucking crazy how no one was "debunking" it. I made some thrown together video about it, just to clear my head after being pissed about the nonsense for years. - Wait, people like Sparky or Blacktail were actually in the military and they actually wrote books, and then had movies? WTF.

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

Coming soon to Blacktail's channel Dare to Compare a 12 year old girl with a BB gun vs. The M1A2 ODS. What's the name of your video,?

[@DeHerg]

For me it's the same with the movie "ideocracy", people treat it like a legitimate prophecy because it fits their bias.

[@mrbigberd]

We finally get to see the Bradley in action against Russia and it's doing just as badly as the much older M113. It's been shown pretty conclusively that all the major complaints were justified. It's easy for Russian ATGMs to target. It's not fast enough. It dies easily to mines. Its armor is so thin that it gets taken out by basically anything.

[@DeHerg]

@mrbigberd An IFV is not doing so hot against anti-tank-guided-missiles. Noooooo really?

[@mrbigberd]

@@DeHerg given that there's an ATGM behind every rock, that is certainly a consideration. Hitting shorter IFV/APCs is harder. In it's original configuration, it would also STILL have died to the plethora of RPGs in the field. It also dies to artillery, mortars, lancets, and even commercial drones dropping munitions. Not performing better than an APC from nearly 30 years prior isn't a great indicator of success IMO.

[@justinh7673]

I'm actually surprised that burton didn't insist on loading the Bradley with actual soliders and sacrificing them in the tests😂

[@azure6729]

So basically flat earthers but with tanks. Gotcha.

[@ANDREALEONE95]

or rather people so ignorant about how much difficult would be develop something that was far from being a simple metal box like the M113.

[@azure6729]

@@ANDREALEONE95 Haha, yeah they were pretty close minded when it came to designing anything. But sadly there are people like that in this world friend.

[@azure6729]

@starshipeleven Ya know fair enough. Also i think flying bathtubs was mentioned once.

[@dariuszrutkowski420]

@starshipeleven There are 2: The Mi-24 and the A-10.

[@ronaldthompson4989]

@@dariuszrutkowski420 IL-2 and Su-25 also held the title

[@fimbul_]

Your conclusion reminds me of the discussion I had with my supervisor, after we're heard an audiobook at work. The story was about two former brain-surgeons complaining about their former workplaces. He asked me on my thoughts on the story. My answer was that I wasn't able to build an opinion on the subject because the two authors seemed very incompetent and overtly petty to me. He believed everything to be true just because they described their bosses overblown ego, and he witnessed people in higher positions with overblown ego, too. Reformers/revolutionaries always say something relatable to catch the listener's attention to sell their "solutions".

[@Rickardo9828]

I actually made an effort to first watch the movie before this since I was curios if I could see any issues with it myself, even if I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject of US armor during the cold war. And the one thing that stood out to me right away is that of course the Bradly can't take a large heat warhead right to the side, it's a light vehicle and obviously isn't designed for it, and in the movie the "tampering" with tests are so outlandish there is no way they could be real, and sure enough, they're not. I think it's a damn shame that in a movie about obscuring facts and no second thoughts fall into the same pit as it's supposed message, if they'd gotten more second opinions on the matter, the movie wouldn't even have been made.

[@jeffreyskoritowski4114]

Then they couldn't make their U.S. bad propaganda.

[@joachimvzm4274]

While this comment is a year old, I feel it still deserves an answer. The "tampering" with the test shown in the movie was (mostly) real, but the film (or more accurately the book) blatantly misunderstands why. To address the specific reasons for the "tampering." The refusal to use dedicated anti-tank munitions: the US army already knew that the Bradley couldn't withstand anti-tank rounds and loudly proclaimed as much. It would have been idiotic to destroy an expensive military vehicle to prove a point that everyone was already aware of, and even dumber to demand that the Bradley be invulnerable to anti-tank weapons when it isn't a tank and wouldn't be used like one. Filling the fuel tanks with water: the goal of a live-fire test is not to make pretty fireworks for the camera. The point of a live-fire test is to figure out what happens when different parts of a vehicle are hit so you can address those vulnerabilities as best you can. This is a lot easier when most of the vehicle hasn't burned down into a puddle of molten aluminum while the rest is scattered across the entire testing facility. Filling the fuel tanks with water allows you to see which tanks was hit, where the fuel would be scattered, and what would be burning in a combat situation. Filling the ammo with sand: very similar to the above. You want to figure out what would happen when the vehicle gets hit by an enemy, not make a bunch of fireworks that ends with a puddle of molten slag that tells you nothing of use. Sand-filled ammo allows you to figure out what got hit and what it would do if combat loaded. Stripping the dummy crew: that bit I said about the tampering in the movie being mostly real? This is the one bit that wasn't. The dummies in the real test were not stripped, they were soaked in water. This was because the test being done was a vapor test to see what vapors would fill the inside of the vehicle when hit and what the effect on the crew would be. This is much easier when the dummies don't catch fire and...burn the vehicle into a molten puddle of aluminum. I'm sure you can probably see the theme here. Basically, the tampering was largely real, but was done to actually make the test useful and not just the world's most expensive fireworks show, one that provided no useful insights to boot.

[@BeefiestFlaps]

The scary part is that mindset is extremely common in the procurement department, look into the M14 program with all its shenanigans that happened during that trial (The FAL had its recoil spring cut, and the AR10 had extremely hot AP ammo run through it in an effort to disqualify them) and the subsequent sabotage of the M16 when the M14 was underperforming in Vietnam

[@Mkoivuka]

The Reformers remind me of the sentiment some people had in the 1970's in the medical community: "Surgeons do not want/need imaging." I have this quote in a physical letter in response to a submission to a scientific journal.

[@animeboy-qy5sq]

Tbh Burton logic is like what a flat earther would use. Though for one thing about the Pentagon War, I kinda really like one of those short video (there is one for the Bradley that is 11 minutes long and has 2 million views) I and watch not for historical accuracy (because duh Pentagon War has BS facts on many vehicles) but if you are a designer or a engineer, beware that the client you are working for might not have a clue what he is doing (which applies to any engineering work).

[@axeavier]

people use that logic for everything when they're against trans people, BLM, masks, vaccinations etc

[@Zorro9129]

@@axeavier Take your little political spiels somewhere else.

[@piotrd.4850]

Belvieve when I say it - this movie has dedicated fandom among people who couldn't care less about Bradley or military, but live literally same stories.

[@amkrause2004]

Welcome to the shipbuilding business.

[@StudM01]

@@axeavier Agree on the masks and vacs, but BLM is a racist hate group pretending to fight police corruption, and it's the trans LOBBY and it's fascism with compelled speech that people don't like. Don't mix up your good points with your bad ones.

[@beargrill42]

The Bradley disabling a T-90 in Ukraine has peeked my interest in this subject, crazy to think it had such a bad reputation due to this one mans slander!

[@ronaldmacdonald8667]

everybody gangsta until the M113 sprouts wings and starts flying

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

"The Reformers are diverse, having little in common other than great self-esteem and matching confidence. They include free-lance intellectuals, veterans, employ­ees of the Pentagon, technical men, journalists, men, women, and, if not children, some who are intellectually not much beyond childhood."

[@itaybron]

Wait so they're basically a group of military luddites?

[@ANDREALEONE95]

military boomers

[@echodelta2172]

​@@ANDREALEONE95 literally

[@Derpy-qg9hn]

Nah, Luddites have a legitimate reason for their view. These guys... what even..

[@JBGARINGAN]

@@Derpy-qg9hn yeah at least actual luddites like the Amish are trying to preserve societal and family values by refusing new technology which is somewhat justifiable. Phones have changed the way the younger generation behaves in contrast to the older generations which is a fact. The reformers think that new technology and even current technology isn't as effective as outdated equipment and is better for warfare, it doesn't even make sense.

[@AreGeeBee]

@@JBGARINGAN Since spears have killed more people than guns, obviously spears are a superior weapon! No other factors need be considered!

[@soup5344]

Reformers in a nutshell: "Money used to make vehicles better, me angy."

[@interfleet522]

Still likes other development programs in US history: over budget

[@itaybron]

F-35: *worried laughter*

[@ANDREALEONE95]

Sound like a strategy rather than an issue.

[@TheTrueAdept]

No, the Bradley's troubled development was thanks in part to the reveal of the BMP-1, which had a 73mm low-pressure HEAT spewer and an ATGM launcher as standard and Vietnam proving that the 'battle taxi' doctrine for mech-infantry was complete and utter shit. Add to the fact that another round of Arab-Israeli wars had ATGMs just wreck face despite their limitations... ... the Bradley got the TOW added to its arsenal in response.

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@itaybron no, the saying of 'steel is cheap (air is free) and silicon (and programming) is expensive' is at full force in the F-35.

[@carso1500]

@@TheTrueAdept sorry but you write mech infantry and... Well Still good points

[@Oxide_does_his_best]

Solid video that is accurate on all points. I wish you would mix in more real footage of the actual vehicle so I don't have to look at a game I dislike.

[@wibzard]

funny seeing you here

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

*WE NEED A WHOLE SERIES ABOUT THESE GUYS THEY SOUND SO WACKY AND OUT OF TOUCH!!!* Do they have a website? It was mentioned in the video

[@nobstompah4850]

combatreform.org iirc

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

@@nobstompah4850 Many thanks!

[@Shaun_Jones]

@@spamuraigranatabru1149 how many brain cells did you lose?

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

​@@Shaun_Jones Yes.

[@LtCWest]

My father was an Infantry man in the "Rumanian" army back in the 70s, he got to play with a bunch of home brewed RPG-7s. However, he mentioned that their performance was kinda lacking, with the rockets often missing the target by either suddenly crashing into the ground or veering off, always just before impact, at an alarmingly high rate. There was hush talk among the soldiers that the launchers were cursed or something. My guess is that those must have been just a bad production run. ^^ As for the A-10 vs F-35 debate, I actually have to partially agree with the Reformists. When it comes to the role of dedicated CAS, the A-10 is simply much better suited for the job. The '35 simply doesnt have the payload and direct firepower of the '10. That being said, the F-35 being multi-role will fair better as CAS in a warzone where air dominance hasnt been achieved yet, whereas the A-10 can be shot down easily by the first fast mover that it encounters.

[@joeyenochs9469]

Just a comical note, the A10 has shot-down more aircraft than the F35. Although, I agree with everything you just said.

[@Warriorcat49]

The A-10 only has more payload capacity when the F-35 is carrying internal weapons only. With external pylons, F-35 is capable of carrying 2000lbs more than the A-10. And before you ask, yes, it does raise its RCS a good amount, but even if its RCS became the same as an A-10's with full bombs (which it probably doesn't since the rest of the aircraft is still designed for stealth, which the A-10 doesn't have), doesn't that still make it at least on par with A-10, plus 2000lbs extra capacity? This also kinda ignores the fact that F-35 wasn't designed as an A-10 replacement. It's there to replace F-16, F-15C/E, F/A-18E/F, EA-18, etc, and it does all of their jobs very well. Side note, the F-16 flew 13,066 sorties in Desert Storm, with 4 aircraft damaged and 3 lost. A-10 flew 7,983 sorties, with 13 damaged and 4 lost. Low altitude gun runs are kinda dead for anything that can feasibly shoot back, and if they can't feasibly shoot back, then you're better off with a lighter, cheaper, dedicated COIN aircraft like a Super Tucano or Texan II.

[@LtCWest]

@@Warriorcat49 Thank you, thats some good information that I wasnt aware of.

[@m1a1abramstank49]

@@joeyenochs9469 Only because the F-35 only recently got put into action which evaded an S-400

[@Ralleigh]

@@joeyenochs9469 The A-10 is literally first flew 48 fucking years ago.

[@dubspool]

You know, this Burton guy sounds like he’d like the navy to back to pre-dreadnought battleships

[@zafranorbian757]

Sponson guns ftw!

[@typehere6689]

Given the mountains of point defense guns dreadnoughts got later, one could kinda say they did. Emphasis on "kinda". The piles of little ones being point defense instead of main armament could be what keeps them dreadnoughts.

[@Jackstalkerfear]

I took pentagon wars more like a jab at the whole bureaucracy that goes on there and it is quite insane to be honest.

[@JT-hh6pi]

Wait wait wait.... you had me all the way until that closing statement “these people will say that the A10 is better than the F35” For the job that the A10 does, yes.... it IS better and cheaper than the F35. This is proven. No aircraft is built to do the CAS mission like the A10. Therefore, no aircraft can perform that mission better. As a soldier, I don’t ask the Air Force to do much... but when I want CAS, I want it now, I want it to be effective, and I want it to stick around until I don’t need it anymore.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The A-10 is only better and cheaper when facing a low intensity conflict with no AA. It would be even cheaper to use a turboprop. "No aircraft is built to do the CAS mission like the A10. Therefore, no aircraft can perform that mission better." - This is circular logic. The A-10 was built to deliver a very specific kind of close air support in Vietnam. But that model of CAS is outdated.

[@JT-hh6pi]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD A10 was designed for CAS in the European theatre of operations, not Vietnam. Detractors want to cry about lack of air superiority or AAA threats, but that’s more of a threat for interdiction fighters, not CAS. Super Ts are a nifty little bird, and cheap, but they cannot bring the same firepower to bear as the A10. If anything, Super Ts and their ilk are more like modern FAC birds. Long loiter times, low speed, cheap cost, limited weaponry.

[@JT-hh6pi]

@Thirsty Sexpert “the actual soldiers”. Funny. Who do you think you’re talking to?

[@undefinedhuman7404]

@Thirsty Sexpert ah yes, the aircraft is at fault for blue on blue, not the pilot flying it; sounds legit lol

[@Psy500]

@Thirsty Sexpert Not any more inaccurate then artillery, the reason why Soviet infantry loved the Su-25 in Afghanistan was they just had to radio in relative targeting information and the pilot did the rest if their information was correct and the pilot did their job correctly. Meanwhile with artillery they had to correct artillery onto the target before artillery could saturate that area with their fire. Making CAS far less prone to friendly fire then artillery when everyone is on the same page.

[@itaybron]

Well as someone in who was in the military I can say the movie is a good portrayal of military bureaucracy even if the guy who came up with it was a meathead

[@Shaun_Jones]

Agreed, I just wish they could have done that message without shitting on an actually successful vehicle.

[@Farrell461]

If you're still making practicality videos would you consider talking about the ODST's from Halo?

[@riesenfliegefly7139]

What do you mean by practical videos ? Even thought i would like to see, I dont think he would make a video about it, because its not about tankstuff. Also what would you want him to say ? Like an "Everyrhing wrong about ODSTs" ?

[@Farrell461]

Riesen Fliege I said practicality videos. Where he discusses the if something from science fiction is practical or not. He’s done videos on stuff other than tanks.

[@riesenfliegefly7139]

@@Farrell461 I know, but he sometimes said, that hes mostly into amored fighting vehicles. Anyway, id like to see it :D But I can tell that this will be a short Video. I already done my research.: Armor is ok, Droppods are unrealistic, weapons are ok, visor is expectable, training is good. Overall good soldiers. So, yeah they would be practical irl, why shouldnt they be ?

[@phantomaviator1318]

I wish he'd do EWW Just Cause 4's Tanks I feel responsible for the ending of that series

[@nekomakhea9440]

TLDR: Old man yells at technology *angry grandpa simpson.jpeg*

[@johnsatan117]

The reformers is why we still think the A10 is God, even it's gun can't penetrate shit, and because it doesn't have radar, has the most friendly fire incidents

[@PantsofVance]

The irony being the A-10 took out several Bradleys during the first gulf war due to friendly fire

[@nagasako7]

M3 Bradley in Hollywood = Death Trap HuD DUR M3 Bradley in IRL = Goes toe to toe with Russian MBTs and wins M3 Bradley in War Thunder = Makes me suffer as a Russian main

[@SeanP7195]

Every military book I ever read all had the same theme. Everyone is a complete doofus hack except me, the guy who wrote this book. Makes you kinda wonder.

[@twentylush]

the emphasis on the m113 was enough to make me go "ah i see what kind of people were dealing with here"

[@fasterthandragons7908]

As I was watching this video, Dalek14mcMk2 was legit the only person I could think of, this video has so much in common with his style. I miss him so much.

[@alwayscurious3357]

Same. What happened to that guy?

[@fasterthandragons7908]

@@alwayscurious3357 Just as stumped as you are.

[@thehumanmechanismmk2545]

Maybe one day, he will return. But I think we should let him rest for the time being.

[@m1a1abramstank49]

@@alwayscurious3357 From what I heard he disappeared himself, being more active on discord. In combination with some topics he didn’t try to fight despite he could’ve easily destroyed them, then again I don’t know the side in this

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

I loved his videos. Shame there isn't a second season of The CAB Show as well.

[@Comicsluvr]

I'm a firm believer in advancing technology, particularly military technology. I subscribe to this for several reasons: 1) Much of what the military pays for trickles down to the private sector. Cell phones, DNA testing, self-driving vehicles...all started as military tech. 2) If the Air Force builds ten fighters so advanced that enemy planes can't hope to match them, then we're less likely to have to build 200 more. Look at the devastation laid down by one C-130 gunship...tried and true firepower matched with hi-tech sensors and communications...as an example. We don't need 500 of them to scare an enemy, we just need a dozen or so and the CAPABILITY to build 500. 3) If hi-tech equipment is designed and built right, we get fewer flag-draped coffins at the airport. Drones have taken out more targets than planes over the past few years and I've never heard of a drone pilot dying to mechanical failure or enemy fire. All this being said, we cannot simply continue to spend our way to victory. The Star Wars defense network Reagan touted so strongly was a huge boondoggle. While the Bradley may have turned out to be a fine vehicle, few can argue that its creation was unnecessarily convoluted and expensive. In the early 2000s, some genius decided to try and streamline our mechanized military with the Future Combat System Initiative, a program designed to use a standardized hull for vehicles with a dozen different roles or more. More than 20 billion dollars went down the toilet before this program was canceled. Developing new tech is expensive. It is also necessary. However, there has to be some sort of happy medium where the cost of the newest thing to come down the pipe is compared against whether or not we need it.

[@AldanFerrox]

Actually, the Bradley was under budget. They had a budget of 12 billion USD for the development, and they only needed 8 billion.

[@TycoonTitian01]

“Blitz fighter was shot down” the irony

[@cattledog901]

Thank God for you making this. I'm so an tired of seeing pentagon wars quotes by pseudo intellectuals on every Bradley video ever.

[@piotrd.4850]

There are more people tired of living through this in project after project. Not related to bradley.

[@dilophosaursniper5399]

Lazerpig: whost hath awoken thy slumber and summond thy, the ancient one.

[@saltysteel3996]

One of my former co-workers used to work on the development program for the M1 Abrams. They did a lot of live fire test on the hull and turret with 105mm up to 125mm cannons both American/European to Soviet. Nothing ever made it into the crew compartment. In Iraq, a time sensitive convoy had an Abrams get immobilized so they had to destroy before leaving it behind. It survived rounds from other Abrams. It then survived a shot from an Apache with a Hellfire missile. They finally blew up the inside with C4 which destroyed the electronics and all the stuff they wanted disabled. The tank still survived but was safe to leave behind. The Abrams is tough as hell. I served 5 years in the Marines and have been in aerospace defense for a long time. I worked on air defense missile systems that have been in service for 22 years now with a 100% combat success rate. Now I work on newer programs for gliding smart bombs.

[@herbderbler1585]

Burton sounds like the kind of guy who doesn't understand why a military would switch to firearms when they have guys who can do this! **dramatic sword-spinning nonsense**

[@Guynumber7]

A corporatist, rich, liberal arts defence policy professor without any military experience was beginning the lecture. ”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship George Standridge and accept that the F-35 is the greatest, most highly-evolved combat aircraft the world has ever known, even greater than the P-51 Mustang! At this moment, a brave, young, patriotic, A-10 Pilot who served 128 tours in Vietnam as an F-5A Pilot and understood the necessity of small single purpose aircraft, cheap winners, titanium bathtubs, Gau-8A cannons, and fully supported Pierre Spreys Pentagon reform policies stood up and held up a model of the P-47 Thunderbolt. ”How much does the P-47 cost versus the F-35, and how much more effective is it?" The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “That old piece of obsolete garbage couldn't shoot down a fly!" ”Wrong. I can build almost 200 of these P-47s for the same cost as your piece of crap F-35! And my P-47s will win every single time while saving money!” The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and Lockheed martin shill bucks. He stormed out of the room crying those Pentagon establishment shill tears. The same tears defence contractor shills cry when their over priced planes get shot down. The students applauded and visited www.combatreform.org/ and accepted Piere Sprey as their lord and savior. An F-16 flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The Movie Pentagon Wars was played several times for other classes that day, and all the students left understanding the futility of overpriced defence contracts read several times, and God himself showed up and replaced all F-22 Raptors with 10x the number of F-82 Twin Mustangs. The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He couldnt get a revolving door job at a lobbying firm either because of his terrible record

[@echodelta2172]

lmao solid take

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

10/10

[@rajingcajun488]

This is military doctrine God’s Not Dead. Gau’s Not Dead, if you will.

[@roadent217]

Oh, man, I swear I've read a variation of this copy pasta before. Reminds me of a Chick Tract.

[@JBGARINGAN]

Lol, but actually wtf, the F35 is super sonic if it couldn't win (which is highly unlikely in itself against 50 cals), it could just fly away and flee or decide the new terms of engagement. That corporatist Lockheed Martin shill may be a shill but he's got the times on his side regardless of his lack of military experience and knowledge.

[@StuieStorm05]

Yeah, even from when I first watched the movie I was confused as to why they were testing the Bradley's survivability against a TOW missile... At the time I just assumed this was a case of the movie writers just not knowing what they should use as a prop.

[@robertw6894]

what does that bit at the end, "a10 is better than the f35" mean? Do you mean overall or in specific roles? because in CAS the A10 is far superior. it has a more powerful gun, it is much cheaper to fly/maintain/repair, it is far more survivable, and it can carry more ordinance. Not only that but the A10 is a proven platform, and is specifically tailored to the role of CAS. Obviously in air-to-air the F35 is superior, but i fear that, by trying to please everyone, they've pleased no one with the f35. rather than making specific aircraft to tailor to each needed role, carrier fighter, air superiority, etc, and thus improving combat effectiveness.

[@FawfulDied]

"because in CAS the A10 is far superior" Not really. "it has a more powerful gun" So what? Armored vehicles are killed by missiles and bombs anyway, and you don't need a big gun to go after soft targets. "it is much cheaper to fly/maintain/repair" Assuming you don't get hit. Also, you know what's even cheaper? A drone. "it is far more survivable" Not even close, in actual combat, the A-10 was pretty much the least survivable fixed wing plane. "it can carry more ordinance" Sure, but not for any decent distance.

[@jusavisa]

If anyone wants a book that's more balanced then Pentagon Wars about the Bradley, it exists, called The Bradley and How It Got That Way,written by Blair Haworth in 1999. Basically a full history of all the twists and turns though I'd say it's in the end a bit more pro Bradley then maybe it needed to be.

[@jocar15]

It's even one of Spookston's sources, there are also some other ones there if anyone wants that are useful to look at!

[@Marinealver]

Thing is the M2 did do well in Desert Storm. So that sort of take the bite out of the book and movie.

[@channelmachinebroke9638]

I understood that the movie wouldn’t be super accurate, love the movie, I still do but I had no idea it was that bad.

[@GeneralLee2000]

Well, the A-10 is better than the F-35 in specific scenarios, and only really when most threats have been taken out. It was built to take more punishment, and has a much better antitank weapon (the GAU-8) along with all the other ordinance it can carry. Of course, the F-35 is stealthier and more high tech, so ideally, you woukd use the F-35 to soften up the area before an A-10 goes in for low and slow CAS, as the A-10 has more loiter time, more ammo in its superior gun, and is built to be resistant to up to 57mm antair cannons in some areas, while the F-35 was designed for stealth. Also, I heard the A-10 is supposed to be getting a new glass cockpit, with the ability to link to the F-35s superior electronics. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it should really benefit it's capability in combat. I wouldn't say either is "better" than the other, since they were built for entirely different roles. Just like how in air to air, the F-22 trounces the F-35, but the F-35 is much better at precision strikes. Great video though, never watched the pentagon wars and never plan to. Cheers!

[@youraveragescotsman7119]

Oh Christ that sounds terrifying. You've just survived a gun-run from an F-35, only for a bloody A-10 to wipe you off the map in moments.

[@GeneralLee2000]

@@youraveragescotsman7119 It should be! Especially since the A-10 can also carry sidewinders, so if you send a fighter in, you run the risk of getting sidewindered as well, if the inevitable screen of F-22s and F-35s, possibly tornados and F-15s as well hasn't killed you first... 🤣 if you try to go heads up, good luck with that 30mm... and it can turn with many fighters since it's so much slower, its turning radius is much smaller.

[@ANDREALEONE95]

@@GeneralLee2000 A-10 was intended as anti-tank rather than an pure attack aircraft.

[@rusher2937]

@@youraveragescotsman7119 more like a SDBII or Paveway IV LGB, the gun is a jet's very last resort in modern combat.

[@GeneralLee2000]

@ did you see the part where I said in specific scenarios? And where I said the F-35 would be better in a hot environment, and the A-10 just had specific advantages? Or did you just ignore that to make this comment?

[@baddiematty5289]

You know, after watching the movie I thought it was full of it. They made Burton out to be this Jesus figure fighting "the man" to save lives. He even gave a speech to the solders who were responsible for setting up the tests about how they "need to do thier duty for thier fellow soldier". Honestly I'm glad to hear the army isn't THAT stupid to give the men actual deathtraps without at least knowing it's shortcomings.

[@SoloWing88]

I think you should make more videos dunking on these Flat ea~Reformers. It's easier now and days to send a YT video then try to explain it and all. I never even knew any of this happened at that!

[@duitk]

I wish I could quadruple like this video, as an engineer with a passion for military equipment I die a bit inside everytime people quote pentagon wars, and take it as fact.

[@iansmith5174]

The M48 is more survivable than the M1 Abrams? He obviously never met Israeli tank commander Avigdor Kahalani who suffered severe burns to over 60% of his body when his M48 was knocked out during the 1967 Six Day War.

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

Yes, especially seeing as he climbed into an Abrams just a week afterwards to compare the two in person.

[@iansmith5174]

@@vaclavjebavy5118 My point exactly! Thanks Mr. Straw Man! [sarcasm] Honestly though; I've never heard any horror stories about M1 Abrams crewmen being burned alive. There was a scene in the movie Courage Under Fire where that happened, but that was a work of fiction. The facts remain; the M1 Abrams protects its crew far better than the M48 and Pierre Sprey is an idiot.

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

@@iansmith5174 Still an odd way to argue it. The M48 is obviously less protected than an M1, but it's roundabout to talk about an m48 that got knocked out by an equivalent tank at the time. I mean, it's barely even necessary to talk about this, just the fact that some m48s were destroyed by their contemporaries would be enough to debunk the claim, as a tank that cannot withstand a contemporary surely can't withstand a much more modern foe. Even if we deemed the Abrams a bad tank, it'd be ridiculous to assume it would have worse armor than the m48. And if we're talking about their survivability relative to their respective foes, the fact that an M48 burned out when faced with pretty much equivalent tanks, doesn't inherently or 'quickly' prove the m48 is less survivable in its own league. TL;DR The example provided is rather weak if comparing the comical gap between the two's survivability in current times, and too vague to demonstrate the superiority of the Abrams compared to the m48 (relative to their own contemporaries) That being said, we both probably spent a lot more time thinking about this than Sprey. Also, nice name

[@iansmith5174]

@@vaclavjebavy5118 Crew survivability is the ultimate survivability. Even tanks that have suffered a 'catastrophic kill' can be repaired. Of the 22 M1 Abrams tanks knocked out in Desert Storm only 4 were completely written off and those were scuttled to keep them out of enemy hands; but most importantly of all, not a single M1 crewman was killed. Even when a tank is knocked out it should protect its crew and this is where the M1 Abrams has excelled.

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

@@iansmith5174 Yeah, and that isn't clear from the original comment alone.

[@pomelo9840]

I agree with the reformers base statement that "America is just throwing people and money at the problem untill it goes away" but them just putting them into a 1993 Honda civic instead of a 2020 Nissan Titan is fuckign dumb

[@Walterdecarvalh0100]

That's retarded. Just compare desert storm to the invasion of Ukraine. The usa isint throwing away it's money.

[@captainfactoid3867]

The second you said he’s similar to Pierre Sprey that explained pretty much everything

[@foolishsparky]

I just finished up the Lazerpig video and came back to this one, and laughed at how everyone universally agrees how stupid the Blitzfighter is.

[@DrownedInExile]

Uh... "anti-tech"??? Perhaps these Reformers would like to suggest the Army go back to using bows & arrows?

[@przemog88]

Don't give them ideas... :D

[@kemarisite]

Imagine what would have happened if these "reformers" had gotten what they wanted: dramatic tv footage of America's newest infantry vehicle being dramatically overkilled by weapons meant to kill tanks. Actually, we don't have to imagine it, because we can just look back to 1922 when Billy Mitchell ignored carefully negotiated test protocols designed to obtain useful data in order to get newspaper headlines about airplanes sinking battleships.

[@atfyoutubedivision955]

Whaaaaaat?! You mean to tell me Billy Mitchell wasn't the second coming of Jesus and that the navy guys weren't just a bunch of behind the times 🅱etards!? Next you'll tell me Belton Cooper wasn't an expert on US armor.

[@SogenOkami]

Ah yes, Pierre Sprey. The guy who said the F-35 can't maneuver... Even though it was matching combat loaded F-16s and pilots were doing aborted cobras with it even when it was limited to 7Gs.

[@bradm3a3]

I've been on bradleys for the last 20 years, and I am glad that you are putting out this info for people that just read headlines and don't do research

[@samuelchappell7280]

Why would anyone want an officer from the Air Force to evaluate a vehicle that was going to be used by the Army and possibly the Marines? It's almost the same thing as asking someone from the Army to evaluate a vehicle that the Navy is going to use at sea. I could understand the conflict if Congress was wanting to find corruption, mismanagement, and waste of taxpayer's money such that Congress can write new laws, policies, etc. which would help reduce and/or eliminate such corruption, mismanagement, and waste in the future. However, given enough time, the pimps at the Pentagon - as well as defense contractors - will always find ways to game the system.

[@Justice094]

You went full broadside on this topic and completely annihilated it. Bravo my friend.

[@sld1776]

Colonel Burton is full of shit. That's the problem with the movie.

[@Timrath]

"Rumanian" isn't exactly wrong. It's merely old-fashioned. It was the common spelling until the middle of the 20th century.

[@ausaskar]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, the "reformer's" core argument has a point. The more technology and gadgetry you try to introduce, the greater the chance your project is going to find itself in buggy development hell. Just see the MBT-70 or M247. Of course flying """Gavins""" and 30mm armed gliders are fucking ridiculous, but I think elegantly simple solutions are superior to technological nightmares.

[@Shaun_Jones]

The problem is that “elegantly simple” can only get you so far. The M247 is a perfect example of that, it was designed to use almost entirely off-the-shelf components, and they had a hell of a time trying to get those components to play nice with the program requirements. At some point R&D is going to require you to bite the bullet and spend the money and time to get it right.

[@paulmahoney7619]

As well, not matter how good your elegantly simple solution is, eventually it will be outdated and you'll have to develop something new, or someone else will first and you'll be on the losing end.

[@benjaminparent4115]

The problem of simplicity is that it is a lot more complex than it look get It ? Especially in higly complex project genrally simplifying one thing can lead to complexifying another. Oh yeah you make very simple vehicle single task vehicle, well you're vehicle is simple but now your logistic is a nightmare because none of your vehicle share the same part, and deploying and using correcly a fleet of specialist is more complexe than fleet of genralist. You basically traded the simplicity of maintenance for operational complexity. And in a way having a fleet of generalist vehicle do lead to an elegant operational simplicity. That's why keep it simple stupid is not that easy to put in practice , and you need to knwo what need to be simple in your project before trying to simplify it.

[@Ramash440]

If I got a dollar for every time someone treats Pentagon Wars like a documentary instead of a comedy ... I'd receive zero dollars, because A-10 and M113 fanboys treat it like the damn Bible instead.

[@reidparker1848]

A-10 is a great CAS aircraft, it just needs air superiority, which is hard to come by in peer engagements. M113 was an aluminum box that desperately needed to be replaced or unarmored.

[@JagerLange]

Say what you want about the reformers, but if someone came up to me in the street and said they can make a M113 fly, my curiosity would override Stranger Danger instincts.

[@DumDumHistory]

The more I read, the more I realize that holding senior military rank is no guarantee against being an idiot.

[@Skillz_4_Thrillz]

It’s very strange how close this video was to Lazer Pigs

[@Spookston]

Look at the publication dates for both.

[@NokotanFanCentral]

do u have a brain injury?

[@sovietholdoutxd7783]

Ironically while the American military (for the most part) ignored the reformers, counties like Russia went all in on the "low cost, low maintenance, high casualty" idea. Talk all you want about damaged/destroyed Abrams or Bradleys, but statistically people survive more in those vehicles than in say, an T-14 Armata or a T-90 where a few well placed shots will blow the turret skyhigh. Not only are lives saved, but those guys can live to fight another day too. People always seem to forget it can take years and tens of thousands of dollars to train a Bradley or Abrams crew correctly, so it's in the governments best interest to make sure their fighting vehicles are capable enough that, at worst, only the vehicle itself is damaged/destroyed rather than it and the crew inside. You can replace a tank or an APC/IFV, it's a lot more difficult to replace the people that'll operate it.

[@petersmythe6462]

The Blitzfighter is like... Can't operate at night because no sensors. Can't operate in bad weather because no sensors. Can't operate without a 10:1 advantage in combat-trained pilots over whatever it's going up against. Can't operate against heavy armor because it can't damage the target. Can't operate in enemy airspace because it'll get annihilated with no countermeasures and no sensors. Can't operate in contested airspace because it'll get annihilated with no countermeasures and no sensors. Can't operate in friendly airspace because no sensors means it can't avoid friendly fire on other aircraft. Can't operate near friendlies on the ground because friendly fire. Can't operate near enemies on the ground because they can shoot it down. Can't operate with smoke on the ground because it can't see.