How not to compare AFVs!

[John Kettler]

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
 

Edited April 18, 2016 by John Kettler

[Zos]

I saw those videos a while ago and have to agree it is rather limited attempt to compare those vehicles and feel more like a sales pitch. Brave never the less and it is hard to disagree that Russian designs are cost effective and well thought out. I am not sure how real is the story behind the Bradley (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA) but I know that many people in democratic governments like to put their hands on some public ("no-ones") money and resources are misplaced. Maybe if you are rich you can afford to give your troops few different IFV that can fill different gaps, but if you are poor you might be better off with one that does it all.

 

[Panzerpanic]

That guy could compare the abram to the sherman and end up saying the the sherman is better because its more cost effective... I see his videos as comedies and no more.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Frankly, every one of those "Dare to Compare" videos are amazingly stupid.  Through a perfect storm of hyperbole, an honest rejection of anything that does not match his exact idea of what that piece of equipment should do, and just plain ignorance he comes up with an analysis that makes M113 Gavin Air-Mech assault teams seem like a rational product.  

[VladimirTarasov]

He barely has any valid points, And he is comparing vehicles very wrongly.

[LukeFF]

22 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Frankly, every one of those "Dare to Compare" videos are amazingly stupid.  Through a perfect storm of hyperbole, an honest rejection of anything that does not match his exact idea of what that piece of equipment should do, and just plain ignorance he comes up with an analysis that makes M113 Gavin Air-Mech assault teams seem like a rational product.  

 

22 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

He barely has any valid points, And he is comparing vehicles very wrongly.

Well, remember it was Kettler who created this topic, which means one should automatically be highly skeptical of the information presented.