I dont know, I was at work.
Anyone want to ask me anything about the Bradley, never gets old.
Anyone want to ask me anything about the Bradley, never gets old.
Abrams have AC's, Brads dont. Brad crews are tougher (just by being infantry alone).
Since you said so so nicely....GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Anyone want to ask me anything about the Bradley, never gets old.
1. Is the gunner seated in the turret, or located within the chassis?
2. How do you turn the turret and shiznits?
1. Turret
2. Gunners hand station. Or, the commanders hand station. Gunners handstation looks like one of those two handed joysticks (wish I could describe it better) and the commanders hand station looks just like your average joystick with all the buttons and what not. Driver uses a yoke
Drivers controls
Gunners side in the turret
BC's side
2. Gunners hand station. Or, the commanders hand station. Gunners handstation looks like one of those two handed joysticks (wish I could describe it better) and the commanders hand station looks just like your average joystick with all the buttons and what not. Driver uses a yoke
Drivers controls
Gunners side in the turret
BC's side
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-13 17:56:00)
you mean the NBC hose...rdx-fx wrote:
nah. it's only 'cause the infantry haven't figured out where the AC switch is yet.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Abrams have AC's, Brads dont. Brad crews are tougher (just by being infantry alone).
(I kid, I kid.. they figured it out. They just broke the damn thing years ago )
woah, i missed like 4 pgs of this one, i just realized that it's on 7 and when i stopped reading yesterday it was at 3..
Ke ke ke, now to build my own Bradley using GS's pics...
that turret is the opposite of comfortable. especially with all your gear on. you have very little room for movement.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-13 17:33:05)
roger that. thanks.
the local iraqis that were hired by the Army to help soldiers with maintenance in the motor pool knew more about the Bradley than a lot of the people who operated it. that always disconcerted me
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-13 18:01:27)
its because they fix the cars they drive, like everyone here used to, but now we've gotten such advanced cars taht no one other than a professional mechanic can do much more than oil changesGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the local iraqis that were hired by the Army to help soldiers with maintenance in the motor pool knew more about the Bradley than a lot of the people who operated it. that always disconcerted me
I should rephrase, they knew too much about the track.smartdude992 wrote:
its because they fix the cars they drive, like everyone here used to, but now we've gotten such advanced cars taht no one other than a professional mechanic can do much more than oil changesGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the local iraqis that were hired by the Army to help soldiers with maintenance in the motor pool knew more about the Bradley than a lot of the people who operated it. that always disconcerted me
I made good friends with one of them dudes. Ali. He would sneak bottles of whiskey in for me for 10 bucks, no problem. Good worker too. He was almost as good at breaking and changing track as I was (best in the army, any army). Too bad he got caught by the gate guard and was banned from the FOBrdx-fx wrote:
As long as the ones working on it weren't sabotaging things, you're good.
I miss Iraqis.
You hit it on the head with Extra Firepower. Since the Main gun isn't always in action, the Loader can occasionaly find himself with nothing to do (although he can operate the Radio). In this situation, he'll likely go unbuttoned (Exposed - Sticking out) with the Tank Commander. You have a very, very limited field of view when everyone is buttoned up, so that extra pair of eyes is a life saver. Hell, even on the road to Baghdad, TC's would usually go unbuttoned so they could get a better handle on the situation. Yes it's more dangerous, but it's not like they joined the Military because it's the safest career path anyway.Mek-Izzle wrote:
About Abrams tanks,
Why does the loader need a machine gun at the top? Is it just for the sake of increasing firepower? I know sometimes they can have the bullet-resistant-window-things, and that sometimes it's radio-controlled, but it seems kinda risky letting the loader expose himself
Idonno
.
lolBut we had FISTers attached to our company. .
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea97e4371a
What's your opinion on the Bradley racing scene in the Iraqs. Is "firing the cannon backwards for more boost" a valid tactic, or is it considered a cheap. What's your opinion on people removing the armament/armour to improve their thrust/weight ratio. Do you think it's appropriate that the scene is being diluted with reports of people using vehicles that (I quote) are "modified to the point that they're just not Bradley's anymore"
Eh, GS. As an insider, it's your job to tell us about the lucrative street racing bznz in the Iraqs.
What's your opinion on the Bradley racing scene in the Iraqs. Is "firing the cannon backwards for more boost" a valid tactic, or is it considered a cheap. What's your opinion on people removing the armament/armour to improve their thrust/weight ratio. Do you think it's appropriate that the scene is being diluted with reports of people using vehicles that (I quote) are "modified to the point that they're just not Bradley's anymore"
Eh, GS. As an insider, it's your job to tell us about the lucrative street racing bznz in the Iraqs.
you are insaneMek-Izzle wrote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea97e4371a
What's your opinion on the Bradley racing scene in the Iraqs. Is "firing the cannon backwards for more boost" a valid tactic, or is it considered a cheap. What's your opinion on people removing the armament/armour to improve their thrust/weight ratio. Do you think it's appropriate that the scene is being diluted with reports of people using vehicles that (I quote) are "modified to the point that they're just not Bradley's anymore"
Eh, GS. As an insider, it's your job to tell us about the lucrative street racing bznz in the Iraqs.
IMO, trying to compare a Abrams and a Bradley is really a diservice to both vehicles purpose. 30yrs ago it would have been akin to comparing the M113 and the M60 MBT. No comparison. For starters, a Bradley is not a tank, namely not a MBT like a Abrams, it is a armored personnel carrier. It weighs a measley 26tons. Whereas a Abrams weighs over 70tons. As a former Bradley driver myself, IMO the Abrams wins in a fight. The Abrams main weapon has a effective range of 8000m, the TOW on the Brad has a effective range 4500m. Even if the Abrams misses the first shot it has plenty of time to fire another..... and another before the Brad could even get in range to shoot.
Anyway, 2 very different vehicles, 2 very different purposes. No comparison.
Anyway, 2 very different vehicles, 2 very different purposes. No comparison.
no no no. Ok, first. A brad with its high turret could maintain a defilade position. The Brad could take out whatever without giving away its profile (in the right conditions). As a brad driver, you should know this. "Driver Up" "Driver Back" is there for a reason.
Second, even if any piece of armor takes out the track, what is the biggest threat to any tank crew, by the book? Dismounts. Warfare is not about comparing vehicles for the same mission. Its about winning engagements. Would a section of Brads take on a section of tanks head first? absolutley not. But, that 8000 meter range means spit if the tanks cant see the enemy.
might have two different purposes, but the same result for both, same mission. Kill armor and troops. The brad is much better at this job. More brads have taken out tanks than abrams have.
not like special forces where you really cant compare em.
and you could never compare the m113 to any tank. what kind of offensive weapons does an APC have compared to a brad?
Second, even if any piece of armor takes out the track, what is the biggest threat to any tank crew, by the book? Dismounts. Warfare is not about comparing vehicles for the same mission. Its about winning engagements. Would a section of Brads take on a section of tanks head first? absolutley not. But, that 8000 meter range means spit if the tanks cant see the enemy.
might have two different purposes, but the same result for both, same mission. Kill armor and troops. The brad is much better at this job. More brads have taken out tanks than abrams have.
not like special forces where you really cant compare em.
and you could never compare the m113 to any tank. what kind of offensive weapons does an APC have compared to a brad?
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-14 06:01:11)
cant turn in place. Ive been in situations where turning in place saved the day. Stuff I couldnt have even come close to doing in a wheeled vehicle.
there are a lot of scenarios, as I think back, that if I had been in a stryker or gun truck, I wouldnt be writing this post today.
dont get me wrong. the stryker does have its advantages as well, but if you weigh them out, I'll take the Brad over it any day.
dont get me wrong. the stryker does have its advantages as well, but if you weigh them out, I'll take the Brad over it any day.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-14 06:55:39)
How many troops can a brad carry? With full combat load?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
there are a lot of scenarios, as I think back, that if I had been in a stryker or gun truck, I wouldnt be writing this post today.
dont get me wrong. the stryker does have its advantages as well, but if you weigh them out, I'll take the Brad over it any day.
Tbh. I'm gonna go and side with the Abrams/MBT guys.
I remember the tanks waking me up in the morning. Best alarm ever God, what a noise!!!
American or Iraqir'Eeee wrote:
I remember the tanks waking me up in the morning. Best alarm ever God, what a noise!!!