The plot of the movie revolves around a comically exaggerated, but supposedly functionally correct retelling of the development program of the Bradley. One of the writers of the movie, which was based on the tell all book he wrote, was also the main character in the movie that is fighting against the program, if that gives an idea of the position the movie takes. The writer fundamentally disagrees with the concept of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and therefore paints anyone who supports to be a complete moron.
(Skip to about 8:10 if you want to get past summaries of the modern company James Burton keeps)
Basically the movie is nearly an inversion of reality when it comes to who was actually responsible for causing the bloated budget of the thing, with the hero of the movie’s real world persona, James Burton, basically being a gigantic bonehead, seemingly intentionally not understanding the concept of an IFV compared to an APC, and throwing as many wrenches into as many processes as possible to get the project cancelled.
He keeps demanding destruction tests of prototypes where the outcome of said tests was never in doubt. At various points in the movie, there are things that Burton was actually responsible for which are rewritten to make others responsible for, and the movie often makes it seem like procedures which are entirely justifiable and routine are actually examples of corruption and manipulation.
For those unaware… APC means Armored Personnel Carrier. The idea is a lightly armored and armed vehicle that can transport troops into and out of a battle zone, basically something more robust than a car.
IFV means Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Idea of this thing is that it transports troops, but sticks around and is a significant factor in the battle, and is thus more heavily armed and armored, such that it has a decent chance of surviving things like infantry carried anti armor weapons, and can do significant damage to entrenched enemy infantry positions.
Anyway, yeah as seen recently rather famously in Ukraine, with the vid of a Bradley crew (there were actually 2 in the encounter but w/e) succesfully stunning and possibly combat neutralizing a t 90 at close range, they are quite capable vehicles when operated by a well trained crew.
Is US Military Procurement and Development an absurdly expensive process? Yes, and part of that is due to actual waste, corruption and ‘alternative accounting’, but the Pentagon Wars is not a good example of how this works. The other part of it has to do with the extreme engineering and technology involved in making military grade vehicles.
I had to look up what the Bradley is; for anyone uninformed like me
The plot of the movie revolves around a comically exaggerated, but supposedly functionally correct retelling of the development program of the Bradley. One of the writers of the movie, which was based on the tell all book he wrote, was also the main character in the movie that is fighting against the program, if that gives an idea of the position the movie takes. The writer fundamentally disagrees with the concept of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and therefore paints anyone who supports to be a complete moron.
LazerPig has a decent breakdown of the differences between reality and the movie.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk&pp=ygUVbGF6ZXJwaWcgYnJhZGxleSB3YXJz
(Skip to about 8:10 if you want to get past summaries of the modern company James Burton keeps)
Basically the movie is nearly an inversion of reality when it comes to who was actually responsible for causing the bloated budget of the thing, with the hero of the movie’s real world persona, James Burton, basically being a gigantic bonehead, seemingly intentionally not understanding the concept of an IFV compared to an APC, and throwing as many wrenches into as many processes as possible to get the project cancelled.
He keeps demanding destruction tests of prototypes where the outcome of said tests was never in doubt. At various points in the movie, there are things that Burton was actually responsible for which are rewritten to make others responsible for, and the movie often makes it seem like procedures which are entirely justifiable and routine are actually examples of corruption and manipulation.
For those unaware… APC means Armored Personnel Carrier. The idea is a lightly armored and armed vehicle that can transport troops into and out of a battle zone, basically something more robust than a car.
IFV means Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Idea of this thing is that it transports troops, but sticks around and is a significant factor in the battle, and is thus more heavily armed and armored, such that it has a decent chance of surviving things like infantry carried anti armor weapons, and can do significant damage to entrenched enemy infantry positions.
Anyway, yeah as seen recently rather famously in Ukraine, with the vid of a Bradley crew (there were actually 2 in the encounter but w/e) succesfully stunning and possibly combat neutralizing a t 90 at close range, they are quite capable vehicles when operated by a well trained crew.
Is US Military Procurement and Development an absurdly expensive process? Yes, and part of that is due to actual waste, corruption and ‘alternative accounting’, but the Pentagon Wars is not a good example of how this works. The other part of it has to do with the extreme engineering and technology involved in making military grade vehicles.