Lets talk about Bradleys!

2008-02-11 18:15:11

#51

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

HurricaИe wrote:
cowami wrote:
Im_Dooomed wrote:
Wait, so what are the Linebackers in BF2? Another variant of the Bradley er what?
The M6 Bradley Linebacker.

Pretty much the same, but with Stingers rather than TOWs.
And four missile firing tube things as opposed to two

edit: Yes hell yes, Bradleys kicked ass in DC. Uber ROF on the cannon and uber missiles. I loved the sound the missiles made. The Bradley in PoE was good as well. The cannon sucked against tanks tbh, but that TOW missile (player-guided... precursor to BF2's TV missiles) was awesome against, well, everything.

we couldnt use our TOWs in a lot of places, especially Baghdad because the streets were narrow where one buiding had a few hundred wires connecting it to another building across the street. TOWs are wire guided and something to do with the electro magnetic whatchamacallit would allow us to guide the TOW. Wires were so low that some guys in the turret would actually get electricuted. I had a buddy of mine that that happened to and it took him 6 months to recover.

did you know that TOWs cant fly over water

did you know the wire that guides the tow is made out of pure gold.

2008-02-11 18:15:20

#52

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6477|New Haven, CT

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
MAGUIRE93 wrote:
Poseidon wrote:

I think GS would know..
yea i know but
the Abrams and the Bradley differnt vehicles used for differnt objectives
yes and know. Bradleys are tank destroyers, like abrams. But guess what, Abrams dont have 6 killers in the back waiting to be let loose.

Doesn't an Abram have slightly greater survivability and a faster maximum speed than a Bradley.

2008-02-11 18:16:57

#53

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

san4 wrote:
I saw (I think on the Weaponology show, which is awesome) something about Bradleys being controversial when used as APC's. Some guy was saying that they are so heavily armed that they are going to engage enemies--but that puts the troops they're carrying at risk. A pure APC could be faster, carry more troops and maybe have more armor.

perhaps, but for the situation in Iraq the Bradley is perfect. Ive got experience with the M2A2, M2A2-ODS and the M2A3. All troop carries, our work horse.

2008-02-11 18:17:58

#54

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

nukchebi0 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
MAGUIRE93 wrote:

yea i know but
the Abrams and the Bradley differnt vehicles used for differnt objectives
yes and know. Bradleys are tank destroyers, like abrams. But guess what, Abrams dont have 6 killers in the back waiting to be let loose.
Doesn't an Abram have slightly greater survivability and a faster maximum speed than a Bradley.

I dont know about survivability. It has more armor. Heavier.

sadly, the sucker smokes a Brad. I used to hate having the tankers on the radio tell us to catch up. fucking tankers.

2008-02-11 18:20:07

#55

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6114|Washington DC

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

yes and know. Bradleys are tank destroyers, like abrams. But guess what, Abrams dont have 6 killers in the back waiting to be let loose.
Doesn't an Abram have slightly greater survivability and a faster maximum speed than a Bradley.
I dont know about survivability. It has more armor. Heavier.

sadly, the sucker smokes a Brad. I used to hate having the tankers on the radio tell us to catch up. fucking tankers.

i thought bradleys were faster?

2008-02-11 18:20:30

#56

MAGUIRE93: High Angle Hell; +182|6347|Schofield Barracks

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
yes and know. Bradleys are tank destroyers, like abrams. But guess what, Abrams dont have 6 killers in the back waiting to be let loose.
Doesn't an Abram have slightly greater survivability and a faster maximum speed than a Bradley.
I dont know about survivability. It has more armor. Heavier.

sadly, the sucker smokes a Brad. I used to hate having the tankers on the radio tell us to catch up. fucking tankers.

id wait for you
EDIT: what was your role in the Bradley?

Last edited by MAGUIRE93 (2008-02-11 18:22:22)

2008-02-11 18:20:50

#57

smartdude992: Keep your head down, smart's got a gun; +30|6085|Georgia, US of A

HurricaИe wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:

Doesn't an Abram have slightly greater survivability and a faster maximum speed than a Bradley.
I dont know about survivability. It has more armor. Heavier.

sadly, the sucker smokes a Brad. I used to hate having the tankers on the radio tell us to catch up. fucking tankers.
i thought bradleys were faster?

appearantly not!!!

2008-02-11 18:21:17

#58

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,977|6785|949

I saw on a program an Abrams catch air off a berm. Like 45mph or so.

2008-02-11 18:21:38

#59

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6477|New Haven, CT

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
yes and know. Bradleys are tank destroyers, like abrams. But guess what, Abrams dont have 6 killers in the back waiting to be let loose.
Doesn't an Abram have slightly greater survivability and a faster maximum speed than a Bradley.
I dont know about survivability. It has more armor. Heavier.

sadly, the sucker smokes a Brad. I used to hate having the tankers on the radio tell us to catch up. fucking tankers.

Supposedly an Abrams hit with some RPGs that was disabled was abandoned in Iraq, and they decided to blow it up with Maverick missiles. The first one didn't deform it.

Wikipedia wrote:
During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick and two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior. [26]

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-02-11 18:24:03)

2008-02-11 18:21:48

#60

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

nope, they are much slower. But thats ok, tanks suck.

2008-02-11 18:23:05

#61

smartdude992: Keep your head down, smart's got a gun; +30|6085|Georgia, US of A

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nope, they are much slower. But thats ok, tanks suck.

we're not talking bf2 are we?? This is all irl...

2008-02-11 18:24:30

#62

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6671|Montucky

AAV crushes the Bradley.. sorry GS, but I'm a Marine.

https://www.defensetech.org/images/aav7turret.jpg

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/aav7a.jpg

https://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/aav/images/AAV%20in%20Iraq.jpg

2008-02-11 18:25:16

#63

The_Sniper_NM: Official EVGA Fanboy; +94|6267|SC | USA |

MAGUIRE93 wrote:
what was your role in the Bradley?

2008-02-11 18:25:21

#64

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

nukchebi0 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
Doesn't an Abram have slightly greater survivability and a faster maximum speed than a Bradley.
I dont know about survivability. It has more armor. Heavier.

sadly, the sucker smokes a Brad. I used to hate having the tankers on the radio tell us to catch up. fucking tankers.
Supposedly an Abrams hit with some RPGs that was disabled was abandoned in Iraq, and they decided to blow it up with Maverick missiles. The first one didn't deform it.

dont know what else to say except that they arent invincible. I personally know one tanker who was KIA. He was killed by an RPG to his turret. Brave guy. SGT Shields. Ive also seen enough dead abrams in armor graveyards and know of at least one other tanker to have died because of an IED to know that they can be destroyed.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I saw on a program an Abrams catch air off a berm. Like 45mph or so.

did you know that it takes 8 gallons of JP8 just to start the sucker, an abrams.

2008-02-11 18:26:29

#65

cowami: OY, BITCHTITS!; +1,106|6443|Noo Yawk, Noo Yawk

S3v3N wrote:
AAV crushes the Bradley.. sorry GS, but I'm a Marine.

http://www.defensetech.org/images/aav7turret.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /aav7a.jpg
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/ … 20Iraq.jpg

Oh boy, interservice IFV arguments!

2008-02-11 18:26:36

#66

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6477|New Haven, CT

More Bradleys have been destroyed than Abrams.

2008-02-11 18:27:28

#67

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

S3v3N wrote:
AAV crushes the Bradley.. sorry GS, but I'm a Marine.

http://www.defensetech.org/images/aav7turret.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /aav7a.jpg
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/ … 20Iraq.jpg

I know enough marines to know that they hate riding in that thing for amphibious landings. But at least its tracked.

2008-02-11 18:27:39

#68

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6671|Montucky

nukchebi0 wrote:
More Bradleys have been destroyed than Abrams.

Abrams don't carry troops. We're talking about IFV (Infantry fighting vehicles) not just Tracked vehicles.

2008-02-11 18:28:32

#69

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

nukchebi0 wrote:
More Bradleys have been destroyed than Abrams.

yeah, I drove 3 in Iraq, 1 was destroyed by an IED, one that replaced that track broke down because it was older than most people posting on the forum and the other was my final one and it took 2 IED hits and kept going. Not to mention a lot of pinging from small arms.

2008-02-11 18:28:58

#70

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6671|Montucky

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
S3v3N wrote:
AAV crushes the Bradley.. sorry GS, but I'm a Marine.

http://www.defensetech.org/images/aav7turret.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /aav7a.jpg
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/ … 20Iraq.jpg
I know enough marines to know that they hate riding in that thing for amphibious landings. But at least its tracked.

Yeah it does suck.. you hit the water and everything, I do mean everything flies through space and time.

even 2nd Lts.

2008-02-11 18:29:42

#71

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

nukchebi0 wrote:
More Bradleys have been destroyed than Abrams.

More Bradleys are in Iraq than Abrams

2008-02-11 18:30:15

#72

Bert10099: []D [] []\/[] []D; +177|6894|United States

I don't like Bradleys.

2008-02-11 18:30:46

#73

bennisboy: Member; +829|6799|Poundland

Bert10099 wrote:
I don't like Bradleys.

Bradleys don't like you

2008-02-11 18:30:46

#74

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6797

S3v3N wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
S3v3N wrote:
AAV crushes the Bradley.. sorry GS, but I'm a Marine.

http://www.defensetech.org/images/aav7turret.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /aav7a.jpg
http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/ … 20Iraq.jpg
I know enough marines to know that they hate riding in that thing for amphibious landings. But at least its tracked.
Yeah it does suck.. you hit the water and everything, I do mean everything flies through space and time.

even 2nd Lts.

haha.

I hear everyone vomits.

2008-02-11 18:31:22

#75

smartdude992: Keep your head down, smart's got a gun; +30|6085|Georgia, US of A

Bert10099 wrote:
I don't like Bradleys.

GO DIRECTLY TO HELL, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200!!!!!!!!!!

BF2S Forums Lets talk about Bradleys!

HurricaИe wrote:

cowami wrote:

Im_Dooomed wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

MAGUIRE93 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

san4 wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

MAGUIRE93 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

MAGUIRE93 wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Bert10099 wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Bert10099 wrote:

Board footer