So... I've just watched "The Pentagon Wars", it revolves around the design and approval phase of the Bradley and at some point they wanted to make it amphibious and lost like 5 prototypes during the development... Yea my question would be if this fact was real (with any vehicle) and how the hell any of them got lost... I mean I would basically seal the thing, make a pressure test, weigh it out (if it would capsize) if no, calculate the volume it would displace, if that checked out... toss one into the water after adding a pair of screws and then, maybe then after at least the primary bilge pump would keep up with everything apply weather and shit............... flaws? I know it's basically the point of the movie, but I'm dead sure at least one design team has fucked that up, right? Btw here's the complete flick in fair quality: youtube.com/watch?v=ir0FAa8P2MU
Fletcher bois semirelated, but you can't go wrong with a pack of pissed off Fletchers, right?.
The pentagon wars is not a documentary, it's a black comedy with virtually no connection to reality
so your answer to "how did this happen" is, it didn't. It was made up for the movie.
John Scott
Nah, a lot of that stuff happened.
Anthony Ramirez
Nope, virtually none of it did. The movie doesn't even follow the basic outline of the book it's based on, which is itself a work of fiction.
Gabriel Barnes
Well, the US army did actually lose a 100-ton tank prototype in the 1940's. The poor thing was abandoned in a farm field for 27 years before being rediscovered in 1974.
So you actually believe that the Bradley emits poison gas like the movie claims even though it has never once done so in actual combat, nor is there any real reason to believe it would?
Charles Rodriguez
Prove it you fat shit.
Adrian Nelson
>they wanted to make it amphibious the first versions of the Bradley could swim, but it took forever to set up the swim barrier,like 30 min to an hour or more depending on the model and if anybody knew what they were doing setting it up, so they may as well not have been considered amphibious
Samuel Davis
"When testing the Bradley, however, disagreements occurred between Burton and the Aberdeen Proving Ground's Ballistic Research Laboratory, which preferred smaller, more controlled, "building block" tests. They claimed such limited (and according to Col. Burton, completely unrealistic) testing would "improve the databases used to model vehicle survivability", as opposed to full tests with random shots that would provide a far more accurate picture of its performance under real battlefield conditions, but produce less useful statistical data.[10] In addition, Burton insisted on a series of "overmatch" tests in which weapons would be fired at the Bradley that were known to be able to easily penetrate its armor, including Russian ordnance. Burton saw attempts to avoid such tests as dishonest, while the BRL saw them as wasteful, as they already knew the vehicle would fail.[10] The disagreements became so contentious that Congressional inquiry resulted. As a result of the tests, additional improvements to vehicle survivability were added. "
None of that has anything to do with what we were discussing...it's like you took a random paragraph from wikipedia and posted it in the desperate hope that the rest of us would be too dumb to notice. Lol
Juan Nguyen
"none of the things in that movie happened"
"a lot of the things in that movie happened"
"Virtually none of the things in that movie happened"
"Nah, a lot of the things in that movie happened"
*sources are cited*
"this one specific thing didnt happen"
this is you moving the goalposts and being a turbofaggot lmao fuckin rekt
Where in that article (or any article, or any book, anywhere) does it say that they "lost like 5 prototypes during the development", which is the precise claim I challenged in my original reply?
Ryder Bailey
"A lot of that stuff happened"
Still true.
Brayden Moore
Why are you incapable of addressing the thing that I actually said, rather than the insane fantasy you've imagined in your mind?
You're not even quoting any of my posts at this point, you're just rambling. What is the point of defending this work of fiction in this way?
Cameron Powell
the hotpan thing actually happened when they tested the heat seeking missiles, except they put a bunch of electric oven heating elements on the target instead of hotpans
Aaron Sanders
You admit that a lot of the things in the movie actually happened. Good. We’are done here.
Brody Peterson
There are also lots of things in the movie that didn't happen.
Alexander Ramirez
>A lot of things in Star Wars happened. There's no air in space and the sky is up. Therefore Star Wars is not a work of fiction. t. (you)
Camden Flores
Some of it did, but the guy depicted as the protagonist wasn't doing a good job. The fact he didn't understand the Bradely wasn't designed to stand up against munitions designed to take down MBTs was frankly absurd. Its a good comedy, but it painted way too flattering a picture of the guy.
Landon Campbell
HOLY FUCKIN SHIT man, my thread really, like pulled some serious cancerautism right there...
>and at some point they wanted to make it amphibious The Bradley was amphibious, but the capability went away with the armor upgrade in the late 1980s. You shouldn't use the Pentagon Wars as a source, it's a terribly inaccurate film.
