Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'flawed afv comparison'.
Found 1 result
After watching a vid I was directed to from Maps and Mods for CMBS, I noticed this. While I grant this isn't Bradley vs, say, a BMD-3 or BMD-4, I believe it speaks to a fundamentally flawed methodology. This concerns me a bit because this guy doesn't really understand what he's talking about and has an ever growing series of videos, not to mention many interested viewers. It would also be nice if he showed each vehicle a bit before burying it under giant lettering! Don't know about the rest of you, but until now, I never heard of a ZLC 2000. And if you think that was a fluke, take a look at this one of a M2A3 Bradley vs a BMP-3. He thinks he's comparing like for like, while dazzlingly ignorant of how big the disparity is even when the item compared is ostensibly the same. Talking sensor performance, ammo performance, etc. And in talking about the Bradley losing a bunch of procurement competitions, he hasn't a word to say about cost. Some of this so-called data is incomprehensible at best, outright lies at worst. For example, I know for a fact the earliest Bradley was specced to survive a 152 mm airburst at 18 meters above that AFV. I know this because I've read the survivability requirements and saw pics of the test shot. You'd never know it from what he presents. Modern US Tanks and AFVs by Green and Stuart confirms this designed hardness vs 152 mm on page 43 and also notes the vehicle is proof against 14.5 AP--from the start (drastically upgraded since). Regards, John Kettler