Funny because it’s true...

Non-modelling related topics. Keep discussions civil. Flaming and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Post Reply
Adam Durrant
Senior Site Contributor.....
Senior Site Contributor.....
Posts: 1791
Joined: 22 Apr 2016, 05:41
Location: Auckland, NZ

Funny because it’s true...

Post by Adam Durrant »

Watched this movie with my feet up in the sun. I’d read about the Bradley development but much easier to watch the movie....

https://youtu.be/ir0FAa8P2MU
I'm a serial kit starter....
Completed Campaigns:
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Philipp Gross
Site Admin/Founder
Posts: 5122
Joined: 19 Jul 2014, 23:40
Location: Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Funny because it’s true...

Post by Philipp Gross »

Oh nice, haven't seen the full version yet!

I have a feeling it was the same for pretty much every other country with a domestic arms industry :lol:

Philipp
Completed Campaigns:
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Mark Aldrich
Senior Site Contributor.....
Senior Site Contributor.....
Posts: 1227
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 21:13
Location: Puyallup, WA

Re: Funny because it’s true...

Post by Mark Aldrich »

Not the IDF. They put a very HIGH priority on the survivability of their soldiers. No to bad mouth my country but after spending 20 years in the Infantry, I can talk a little. The U.S. Army has never used their battle taxi's for what they were designed. That is, to take the troops to and from the battlefield. That was the issue with the M113, the Stryker and the HMMWV. The Bradley is really no different other than it is armed. It cannot withstand a punch and while the TOW may be kick ass, it take entirely too long to engage targets with. These vehicles were never designed for use in urban combat. They were also not designed to withstand Medium to Heavy weapons, RPGs/RRs, and IEDs. The Israelis however, realized this and set about to make a personnel carrier that put crew survivability as a priority rather than an after thought. They knew the M113, Bradley and Stryker were ALL too under armored for the conflicts they would be facing and thus the Nagmashot, Nagmachon, Nakpadon, PUMA, Achzarit and Namer have all been developed.
Cry Havoc and let slip the Dogs of War
TreadHead is NOT an ugly word

Completed Campaigns:
Image

Adam Durrant
Senior Site Contributor.....
Senior Site Contributor.....
Posts: 1791
Joined: 22 Apr 2016, 05:41
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Funny because it’s true...

Post by Adam Durrant »

NZ is not immune to any of this even though our domestic arms production is almost non-existent. Most of our arms purchases have been piggy-backed onto Australian orders or have been linked to other deals, especially after the collapse of ANZUS due to our "anti-nuclear" standpoint (not that this position is wrong). Interestingly in the late 1990s the NZDF looked at the Bradley to replace our ageing M113A1 fleet, it was felt that the hull (up armoured), minus the turret, was a good option. Without the turret we could also buy 3 for the price of two. In the end we went with the NZLAV, which has been a mixed bag.... ;)
I'm a serial kit starter....
Completed Campaigns:
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Mark Aldrich
Senior Site Contributor.....
Senior Site Contributor.....
Posts: 1227
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 21:13
Location: Puyallup, WA

Re: Funny because it’s true...

Post by Mark Aldrich »

The Stryker was the same with us (mixed bag). On paper it may look good and it's weight allows air deployability but it can't hold it's own against the things were are using it for now in our conflicts. While the Heavy APCs of the IDF are super cool looking and can withstand a punch, they weigh as much as a tank so for us to use them would be counter productive as they are not as transportable as the Stryker.
Cry Havoc and let slip the Dogs of War
TreadHead is NOT an ugly word

Completed Campaigns:
Image

User avatar
Justin Wooding
Posts: 1343
Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 09:34
Location: Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Re: Funny because it’s true...

Post by Justin Wooding »

Hi Adam,

Thanks for posting that. Never seen it before, but that is brilliant. I love it!

I would say that epitomizes the development of many military vehicles. I chatted with a soldier here a while back who was involved with some vehicles here during test phase. As he said, if the vehicle doesn't pass the testing and trials, then we must adjust the criteria and testing conditions to suit. Probably easier and cheaper :lol: :lol: :lol:
Woody...

Trying hard to do some modeling!

Post Reply