The Pentagon Wars | English Full Movie | Comedy War
2024 ж. 18 Нау.
177 024 Рет қаралды
Never miss a single new movie film - subscribe here - ► / @gem-filmlibrary
In this gripping tale, a decorated soldier uncovers a military cover-up, plunging into a dangerous quest for truth. Loyalties are tested as he delves deeper into the shadows of his past, risking everything for justice.
Starring: Kelsey Grammer, Cary Elwes, Viola Davis
Directed By: Richard Benjamin
All of the content on this channel is under legal license from various copyright holders and distributors. We ask you to please contact us if you believe there are any copyright issues via -
gem.filmlibrary@gmail.com
#FullFreeMovies #Comedymovies #FreeKZheadMovies
After watching the movie, I am glad that the military didn't take reformers seriously.
Why do you say that?
@@DASCO2136 Because they're an absolute joke. They believe that the the US military should use old and outdated equipment to solve modern military problems. Imagine believing that the M1's engine is dangerous to troops that walk behind it because it would burn them to death, the ammo is dangerous cause it's combustible just like the M551 and my personal favorite according to Pierre Spree the M48 was more survivable than the M1 because the Army never did any live fire tests. In the aviation side of things, they're the ones who proposed that the A-10 shouldn't have any radar, radar warning receivers nor a Constantly Computed Impact Point (CCIP). Same goes with the F-15 and F-16 except they wanted it to be a gun only aircraft because missiles are unreliable. James Burton (main character in book and film) proposed the idea of the Blitzfighter which is similar to the A-10. But when his superiors said that it should get a radar he said no basically because according to him radar can't differentiate a tank to a tree or a car filled with refugees. Also, when the army was making the A1 to improve survivability he suggested that the Bradley should put all of its ammo and fuel outside the vehicle and during the Army's High Survivability Test Bed Program the Army moved the water supply to the center of the vehicle so that if it got hit and there was an internal fire the water would put it out and he was outraged because according to him that's cheating apparently.
I wished we had we are in a world where the Russians were stopped by fucking Maxim machine guns and cold war RPGs while our super high tech wonder weapon tanks can't even cross trenches and anti tank ditches that ww1 generals would see no difference in from the war and just left t.
@@zeo-pe5sgfound the Russian bot
@@Woodartifact388 why you booing me I'm right. Last I checked the whole war has devolved into trench warfare and artillery duels with drones and attack Helicopters.
The fuel tanks being filled with water and the ammunition being filled with sand was to show which ones were most venerable. If the entire vehicle exploded, it would be difficult to tell which one did.
They also stripped the dummies so they could douse the uniforms with water first. When they did the test, they could see which uniforms were about to ignite without them all burning to ash.
Venerable? Like this? Accorded a great deal of respect, especially because of age, wisdom, or character
I remember all the controversy surrounding this vehicle. Turned out to be very successful and well liked by it's crews. The Ukrainians love them.
From a British perspective... NOTHING HAS CHANGED !! Example: the £1-million each British Foxhound patrol vehicle, signed into service in 2012 Afghanistan despite it failing hot weather trials. Generals & government ministers were so busy with that corrupt on 11 Sept 2012 (run fake trials on Camp Bastion airfield) that they forgot to guard Camp Bastion's airfield. On 14 September the Taliban attacked the airfield, killed two US Marines & destroyed $400-million of kit - but all failures were covered up in subsequent inquiries, nobody British officers were held to account & the Foxhound continued into service. In 2017 it was reported that the Foxhound was still breaking down in hot weather - the fault was never fixed & it did cost British & allied personnel their lives. 'The Pentagon Wars' is a BRILLIANT film, exposing the corrupt profiteers that still populate our higher commands - hats off to all involved.
Did the Foxhound have an insane RAF Colonel who did not know how testing worked and when people tried to explain it to him he yelled "conspiracy."
Pentagon wars is a comedy film that should not be taken seriously
Correction: The Pentagon is a comedy that can't be taken seriously
@@anthonycheaford1962 from a suggestion to indisputable law
I'm worrying about NGAD
Brilliant movie, even if it's a joke or not it still better than most bs movies that hollywood makes nowadays. 80s and 90s rocking till this day because of things like this, being a comedy, drama or action movie, they were all high quality and very entertain to watch; Now you barely find a good movie from "top tier" studios.
While many hated how the story was far from factual, I still liked the movie for accurately portrays the chaotic mess of government bureaucracy and its politics. I think Kelsey Grammer did his part very well. Yes the so called "reformers" getting flamed lately for many of their dubious claim and controversy, but we have to understand that this is a movie not a documentary, and they shouldn't always be accurate and stick to the real story.
Initial, I thought it was accurate. But after reading up on, it, turns out it was extremely inaccurate and very one-sided. The “hero” of the movie had his own theory of how the military should be run. Meanwhile, the Bradley still in service.
The movie is very accurate, it is only the current military fan boys who lack any idea what the movie is about. Simply, the initial Bradley manufactured before 1988 was a lemon, it was until the live fire test Col. Burton insisted upon was the Bradley improved with more armor protection. Col. Burton was worried about the survivability rate of the soldiers if the Bradley got hit not if an anti-tank weapon could pierce the armor of the Bradley.
@@michaelotieno6524 No, the movie is very inaccurate. I actually research that after I watched it. The “hero” of the movie had his own agenda. The stuff like this happened, I’m sure. But not like this. If you take things that happen and pretend it happened on this program then that’s called inaccurate. By the way, the Bradley still in service
@@michaelotieno6524 and you do understand the conundrum facing the Army, right? That an IFV can only be so armored and protected before it becomes as heavy and as expensive as a main battle tank. This entire movie is the film version of “Hah, I portrayed you as the soyjack and myself as the Gigachad, I win” courtesy of the ‘Reformists.’
You tubers Chieftain and Spookston have very good videos debunking this. Lazerpig has a video debunkinf the whole fighter mafia/reformer lot.
Do I believe Department of Defense apologists or do I believe a whistle blower? The military has been lying and covering up for as long as I can remember. I am 81 years old. The military does not respect or trust civilians. Civilians should not respect or trust the military.
@@gordonhaire9206 Not all "Whistle Blowers" are created equal and Burton sure wasn't the brilliant, bright-eyed hero he made himself in his own book.
@@gordonhaire9206that “whistleblower” was in a group who called the Abrams tank, F-15, and F-22 shit. That “whistleblower” even designed a discount A-10 with only a gun and a radio. That “whistleblower” and his ilk’s live fire test basically dumbs down to destroying a not-tank with a tank-killing weapon. What even is the methodology when you know it will destroy something that isn’t a tank? It’s like trying to study air crashes by putting the damn thing into a shredder and hydraulic press. You learn nothing from it other than it’s dead. So I’ll take the DoD “apologists” on this one.
@@poisonshadow317 butthurt much ?
It’s a good movie, despite all the misinformation and lies about the bradley, also a great satire on government and pentagon politics.
The movie says the truth about the Bradley. The current Bradley is not the same as the earlier Bradley manufactured between 1981 to 1988. The post 1988 improvements are thanks to Col. Burton here.
@@michaelotieno6524 no it does not say the truth about anything, most of the stuff in that movie that they made huge deal out are in real life non issue and most of the real issue the Bradley had where never raised by Burton, so no the later design we have of the Bradley is not thanks to Burton.
Unlike other Airforce colonels, I can speak with an English accent
I think if they made a movie about the Sgt York DIVAD system, it would make this movie look tame in comparison.
Being as how nothing in the movie is real, yeah I guess so. You realize the entire movie is total BS... right?
A similar film could be made about the Boeing 737 except their emphasis is on net profits; damn safety, full speed ahead (putting profits ahead of quality inspections & safety, to keep cash flow high).
“No one goes to Fresno for a vacation, colonel.” 😂
In recent years, it's been discovered that Burton lied about a lot of things that are portrayed here. It's frustrating because Burton's approach involves playing with people's emotions. People like underdogs fighting the system, and he knows that all too well. Few examples. -The MICV program that led to the Bradley was always intended to have a turret. One of the early proposals was more or less a modified M113 that had a turret. -The Bradley program was actually around 4 billion UNDERBUDGET when Burton was involved in the program. This was out of a total project budget of 12 billion, as was discussed during the real-life hearing (which is portrayed late in the film). -Burton was the one who came up with the Joint Live Fire Test Program, in which he intended to destroy Bradleys. This was opposed because a.) he would be covering ground already covered and b.) it would be a costly program compared to point-by-point tests. Burton decided to see this as evidence of a cover-up. Other things, like the bit about water in the gas tanks, are misrepresented to make him look like the good guy. This shows vulnerabilities without completely destroying a vehicle or rendering it useless. The film also plays on emotions by making you think that the M2 needs to withstand anything and everything. And that anyone who doesn't agree with this doesn't care about the troops. So why did Burton go on this crusade, anyways? There's evidence to suggest that Burton was taking his anger out on the military for rejecting an aircraft proposal he drew up. He prided himself in being against things like infared, radar, and other such things. He was told the aircraft would at least need a radar, which he proclaimed couldn't tell the difference between a tank and a VW bus full of civvies (spoiler alert: things like radar and thermals allow you to make that distinction). So when his idea was turned down, he reacted like a kid being told to eat their vegetables. This isn't a story about exposing corruption and fighting for the men in the field. This is a fable spun by a scorned man looking to get even, consequences be damned, using manipulation and half-truths.
It's like the Death of Stalin - dramatized, and best looked at as a good example of politicking. Both movies are not a documentary.
Yep, bullshit. Still doesn't change that the US military overspends like crazy and has to an increasing degree pursued idiotic or at least badly thought out and non-dedicated designs, due to the politicking and lucrativeness of a war economy for a country that doesn't itself have to directly go to war. The good end of it is in fact represented by things like the Bradley and the F-35; Vehicles and pieces of equipment which after a whole lot of brute forcing and in combination with intense testing and first-round field fixes end up as decently functional combat hardware. But that's the _good_ end of the spectrum. On the other end you have things like UCP camo, the Osprey, torpedoes that consistently fail to perform, countless cases of radar and lidar design failures... Usually smaller things, granted - but it all adds up. That's the problem. That's what ol' Dwight was partially warning about. The fundamental incentive of the Military Industrial Complex is to be an inefficiency maximizer. And while it may be that eventually enough of the stuff that gets turned out just by sheer amount of shit thrown at the wall passes muster... Well, when e.g. the CV90 can measure up to the Bradley or even by small measures outperform it, that's not a big whopper; But when put in the perspective that it was designed, tested and built by a marginal back-end nation in about half the time and at a _fraction_ of the cost... The comparison that springs to mind is Honda, Suzuki and all the others getting beat by Ducati in MotoGP. When they're giant industrials with billions dedicated to racing development and experience from even more fields to pull, while the other is a hard-run comparatively boutique shop with less than a twelfth of the budget. The problem is the waste. Which is in itself a two-way street. Because firstly that money goes towards that churning machine of turning around metal uselessly, seeing as it will often simply end up on the scrap heap - which is not the harm in itself really; It's called a deterrence, and it does get recovered and sponsor some actual production and engineering and recovery jobs and turnout. But it does do harm by over-promoting the unmeritorious and boosting politicals and agendas that couldn't work without the oodles of waste cash and sleaze that it enables. And secondly, that money then detracts from or crowds out the stuff and the people that is actually meritorious, more focused on pure engineering. That's the issue that some kind of film _should_ have been made about. It's just that it would be hard to film or get any sort of consistent red thread through it all, to make some kind of tie-in subject or project to center it all around for a narrative. Not to mention it would be difficult just to get some people _engaged._ "What are you talking about? We already know the military waste so much money!" Instead we got this bit of garbage.
@@johnw1954There are some serious differences in those two movies tho - Death of Stalin is a full blown comedy, a lot of historical facts were changed or condensed in time to better fit the movie format. But overall the movie does a very good job portraying the terror Stalin posed and the political climate and power struggle which occured after his death - of course in a exaggerated, comical way. Pentagon wars on the other hand is just straight up lies tho, fully made to discredit the military and push a false narrative.
Cary Elwes being English did a damned good job of playing an American officer. I hope he does more like this movie.
I enjoy this movie inspite of it being "A True Story" its a funny caricature of the procurement process. This is just me and its with all movies like this and it suspends my disbelief, and yes its a nit pick, it looks EXTREMLY Southern California.
This movie is a superb satire of the "military establishment", & the absurd & bureaucratic "top brass" metalities are spot on accurate, I imagine. The movie may not be entirely accurate, regarding all the problems, cost over runs, & hasty redesign proposals of the Bradley armored vehicle, but I think the movie showcases well the "ignorant (& corrupt) children with power" image of "top level brass", which I suspect is much closer to reality than to fiction.
I love how every youtube tank experts bash this film as is if was not documentary and not a comedy movie...
While it may indeed be a comedy, it is certainly no documentary. Every part of this movie is entirely fiction. This movie says more about the sick and twisted demented mind of Colonel Burton, who wrote this fictional work, than it does about the Bradley.
People bash the film because idiots ignore the fact it's a comedy film and take both it and the rest of the ramblings from the "reformers" as gospel. The irony is of course far trying to "save money" and improve things. Burton simply wasted money, all his additional tests were about "over match" that is to see how the Bradley would stand up to weapons that it was never meant to withstand strikes from. He was the exact sort of Cretin that wasted R&D spending he claimed to be battling against and when he was exposed he cracked the shits, quit and tried to rewrite history. If Burton got his way we'd be dropping nukes on humvees.
@@AlaskanGlitch Exactly, I am amazed that people think Hollywood movies are where they should get their information from. Go watch "LazerPig's" video on this subject if you want the real story about what a mental patient and liar Burton was.
Fantastic movie! Kelsey Grammar and Cary Elwes at their best!
I read somewhere that they actually were looking at designing a dedicated troop carrier variant of the Bradley, increasing it's troop capacity, as intended from the first drawing board. It would be WILDLY ironic and wind up the cherry on this sundae of a movie if it's true.
I'm watching this in Ukraine . Glad it turned out 100 percent better than the original
@@UserUser-ww2nj FALSE... there was NEVER any issue with the Bradley, the movie is totally Hollywood make believe BS. Go watch "LazerPig's" video on this subject if you want the real story about what a mental patient and liar Burton was.
Can't stop watching this film.
My favorite part of the movie is it tries to pitch the AF officer as being smart for wanting fuel in the test vehicle for target shooting instead of water.....when you could clearly tell if a fuel tank is ruptured from a hit with water AND reuse it for further tests instead of burning it down based on information you already know. This movie does have funny moments but in no way should any points made be taken seriously. The reformers were morons. (anyone who doesn't know who they are they are the guys that wanted to replace the F-15 with a fighter that had no radar, missiles, flares or chaff, and just a gun, basically and F-104 but worse)
That's also why they put sand in the ammunition. So they could find out which ammo boxes got hit. Instead of all of them going up in a blaze of glory.
The mix of comedy and seriousness kept me focused the whole time while watching this movie. All of the cast fill their roles strongly, but I would like to single out Kelsey Grammer as General Partridge. He is able to create a cunning character here, who is probably a military leader, but could just as well be a manipulative CEO, as we know in the corperate world.
I remember being 15 when this movie was released on HBO. I love this movie. 'NOW LISTEN TO ME YOU FUCKIN FLY BOY YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT COMBAT!"
Literally the only part that is true. Burton knew nothing about combat.
none of this happened. It's a good movie though
If I recall, the *tests* happened... but not at all this way.
The conversations are fictional the facts are spot on
"War is a Racket" by two-time Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC (R). If you liked this movie, you should read it.
The satire in this movie is gold
Definably a fun watch even if a lot of it is wrong or incorrect.
What was wrong or incorrect?
@@jasonbourne1596burtons “tests” were BS and not proper for the testing of new equipment, and burton himself is mischaracterised as a well meaning officer as opposed to his real life equivalents high levels of corruption and ties to the ‘reformers’
Love all those black and white images at the start
That´s my favourite part of the movie
Amanda Waller was really chill early in her career.
A lovely reminder for everyone that the reformers (which burton is a part of) don’t understand what role the Bradley (and other modern equipment) is supposed to play, and measure the effectiveness of an new system with the same Metric as the old, despite the fact that warfare changed and the new equipment plays a now different role
This is a comedy not real life. I was at LLNL and we developed weaponry back in the 80s that is still used today.
Certainly, certainly...But did you use them personally?
@@yvesmorin2272look at Ukraine right now I am say those weapons are certainly being used.
Kelsey Grammer was perfect for this roll😅
Hilarious no matter if the story is true or not. If it is true it is so unbelievably horrible for the victims. Great actors. I loved this movie.
The Ukrainians love the hell out of it!
They would rather get a bunch of M1A2s instead, but beggars can't be choosers.
@@amedv For run and gun penetration thrusts the M1A1 would find it's place but not with drones, mines and built-up defensive lines. In defensive maneuvers and small insertion attacks the Bradley rules.
@@MrKbtor2 I was talking about a bunch of M1A2s, not three dozen of M1A1s from some junkyard Ukraine actually got. The same applies to upcoming overdue-for-decommission F-16.
That's because it is the best IFV on the planet, that movie is a totally made up LIE!
@@amedv Doesn't matter what model of Abrams Ukraine deploys. The drones are flown to hit it from above and from rear, which is how Javelin bypasses the frontal armor. Drone doesn't care for Depleted Uranium in the turret sides, cheeks and hull glacis. It hits the roof of the turret on top of ammo compartment or engine compartment. Tank will be immobilized and finished off with a couple more drones or artillery.
Great movie, perfect cast, thanks a lot GEM.
As a Brit I think this is a brilliant film. Especially as you could swap in oh so many British projects, Blue Steel, TSR-2, SA-80 and many many many more projects
the way ahead of its time TSR2 was cancelled because the government of the time said missiles were they way forward,
What´s your problem Smith? Not elegant enough for ya!? Besides, portholes? What are we? The Navy?
In its first actual combat, the Bradley did exceptionally well. Middle East, Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
context on Romania: it was an independent state ruled by a communist regime. it was part of the "Soviet block," but that just means it was a member of the Warsaw Pact. the Romanian ammo wasn't Soviet, and you could tell this by the simple fact that the text wasn't cyrilc
The fact is that in those times we have one of the best defense industry in the eastern block with clients in the whole third world, so is very derogatory to describe our ammunition as „bad”. In fact the american troops has captured Ak-47 s stamped „Cugir Factory” in the Middle East from the insurgents in almost perfect condition used by the irakian army since the iranian-irakian war in the 80s . Saddam Hussein was one of our best customers on a long list of african and middle eastern presidents, dictators and revolutionary leaders like Yasser Arafat. On the other hand we have enough good technicians to be able improve our arsenal before and after the revolution of 1989 even with limited means thanks to our research teams and fruitful colaborations with israeli defense industry, one of the best and competitive in the world and partially with the United States. But today we buy as american vassals only your deprecated and overpriced weapon sistems as our sometime formidable defense industry is a hill of scraps thanks to our corrupt politicians.
@@huamokolatok Wrong, Romania did had the worse ammo ever produced, in fact it still has. The 100mm AntiTank round is the worse ammo ever produced, even the armed forces complains about it. TR85 cannon is not able to do much damage because Romania is not able to produce quality ammo. Also, AK ammo is not very good in comparrison with other sorrounding countries.
@@TheBoyar the problem with the TR-85 and its ammo is that... this is a fancy T-55 being pushed forward in 2024. The army simply did not have the budget to get something more advanced. It's a problem of age, not quality. Thankfully, 54 Abrams M1A2 are coming to Romania in 2026. Regarding Cugir ammo in Iraq: communist Romania produced great *export* goods. What was kept for internal use was... whatever was too bad to sell.
@@TheBoyar Today maybe yes, because our defense industry was already sold to scrap and we have no capabilities to produce as in the past. But in the communist era was different. And even with the scarce resources we have we were able to modernize our Migs 21 and Puma helicopters and produce one supersonic fighter, Hawk for training and attack on soil. When you import special powders from Serbia is natural you aren t capable to produce quality ammunition anymore. And our tanks constructed after old soviet era models are already obsolete so is enough that they could function, and so is the armaments of the infantry. We aren t able to develop an original assault rifle, only a pistol imitated after the Jericho produced in some 10.000 pieces distributed to local police and constabulary forces. What we have new and in almost good condition are bought for high prices from our foreign masters from NATO.
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Closing Time' by Joseph Heller - a sequel to Catch-22. This film is remarkably cohesive with that storyline. With much finer tolerances and successful tests than the original Bradley program.
I find rather amusing that they're shocked when he says billions.
To be honest, however, while the movie may not be particularly accurate in many details, it is not inaccurate on it's premise. Generals and politicians are much a likeness - especially in an nation where there is no separation of powers between the authority of the armed forces and the procurement, payment and processes of the armed forces. Even in nations like the UK, where there is that separation of powers, most flag officers are treated suspiciously by the troops for their demonstrated intentions to meet political outcomes ahead of tactical or strategic military ones. It is so much worse in the US where there is not that separation of powers, and where industry is intrinsically tied up with the political processes. Three points that highlight this: firstly, the UK testing on their own equipment did yield significantly different results to the testing the US had done to date - and that was not just due to the fact the UK is generally colder than the US. Second, although related, the UK was able to do much in the way of battlefield testing of many of these theories in the Falklands War, which yielded results that are still the basis for much in the way of military processes used by Commonwealth countries today. This was particularly so relating to armour and structural design, as well as in fire suppression systems and tactics. Finally, the significant design differences between the Israeli and original US versions are very well documented...and the fact that most of the Israeli design differences were incorporated into later Bradley design upgrades proves that fact. The reason Israel was so caught up on these differences is because they weren't interested in building vehicles for political showmanship. They were interested in building weapons of war regardless of internal political squabbles. After all, they were and continued to be involved in existential conflicts where these vehicles were used repeatedly in actual combat conditions, essentially from delivery. Hence, the Bradley of today is quite a useful and proven combat vehicle. But the premise of the movie, that the US Procurement Processes are fundamentally flawed and susceptible to political interreference, that is proven fact. Comments claiming otherwise are either delusional or part of the propaganda machine. If this was not so, the international elements I have described would simply not exist.
You do realize… that Israel never operated the Bradley. They did some testing with one where they ripped the turret off because the wanted a replacement to the M113, but ultimately settled on an indigenous design. The movie straight up lied about the Israeli Bradley. As for the UK having all this data, is that why the Challenger II is famously the best MBT?
1) there is oversight in the US. That's how we know of issues with corruption like the recent overcharging of parts. 2) Your entire premise is just wrong. Even if we grant the idea that generals are just out to put money in their pockets, if they don't get positive results, they get *no* money. You can't name me a general that backed a program that ended in disaster and he wasn't forced to retire for it or worse. 3) What on earth are you on about regarding Israel???
Great movie, fantastic actors!
Awesome movie. I was in the Regular Army and worked for the gov for six years and I know how wasteful and ridiculous the process worked. I left for the private sector and never looked back.
The scuttlebutt is that NO ONE WORKS AT THE PENTAGON. It is a rest camp.
Yknow the general guy has a good point about the tests. They literally can’t afford to just blow up everything, so the thing like water in the tank to show if it penetrates and other things like that is a way to not completely blow it up. And leaning about the actual background, yeah I can see why this movie pisses people off
Also a point the movie missed - that sometimes a weapon with minor defects is better than an out of date weapon and the US army had no effective IFV prior to the Bradley which put the troops at a big disadvantage - delaying essential weapons can also get people killed. I mean imagine if the Gulf war was fought only with Abrams and M113's? I think the movie was overly harsh to General Partridge.
Ifv not tank.
The Bradley was already way over delayed and over budget. What are you talking about?
@@flashgordon6670 LMAO, bradley was under budget. the program costed around 8 billion, while 12 billion was the expected cost
@@flashgordon6670The Bradley was under budget. Don’t use a comedy movie from the 80s as a source.
People need to realize this movie and what its based on is BS to a very large degree. The passed over decorated soldier was in fact the one screwing things up.
me: (starts movie) movie: And believe it or not...This happened. also me: It did...not happen as depicted, you're right!
You related to Partridge?
How much over delayed and over budget was the Bradley project then?
@@flashgordon6670 Under budget, actually. It was planned to cost $12 billion. It cost $8 billion in total.
@@flashgordon6670 Hit reply before I was done, sorry for the two notifications. The ammo full of sand and the fuel tank of water DID happen. It was because High Command KNEW that a powerful enough anti-tank round would punch straight through the Bradley. That was fine, because the Bradley is an IFV, not a tank. NOR an APC as is repeated in the film ad nauseum. The water and sand would show what was happening to the Bradley WITHOUT spreading the evidence over a wide area. Saving the army one experimental armored vehicle worth millions in the process. That, among other things like the Bradley ALWAYS having a turret from its inception, is among many things the book the film takes from gets wrong.
The swamp and the military industrial complex not much has changed ................
very funny. Thank you from Manhattan ©2024
As an ex-soldier aware of fiddles but only able to put two in jail, I did not find it funny, more petrifying.
Considering Boeing 737 Max, all seems to fit in the ego centric money making individuals
We also need to bear in mind that Boeing is now run by a lot of the same top dogs that ran McDonnel-Douglas into the dirt.
Completely wrong based on real history and heavily biased but still a good film
Okay then, I'll bite. You can't just make claims, so my question is, exactly how is this movie inaccurate?
@jasonbourne1596 the Bradley is one of the most highly capable ifvs. It was never intended to be used in the role the movie portrays it to be. Burton himself was a highly corrupt and incompetent character who cared about nothing but pushing his own pipe dream projects. Noone was actually surprised by his "tests" the Bradley was never supposed to be able to take a tank round and survive.
@@jorkraven8819 They didn't test it with a tank round. Nobody claimed it was supposed to survive a tank round, even other tanks can't survive a tank round.
@@jasonbourne1596 The film implies an IFV should be able to shrug off ATGMs which is nonsense, it also lies by omission in that the m113 the Bradley replaced is also made of aluminum, fails to mention the whole project is a response to the Soviet BMP (which also tried to be armored, amphibious, feature gun ports and mount an ATGM). The 'better' variant being sold to Israel in the film never existed nor did the sale itself. The weapons lampooned in the opening were all demonstrated to be wildly successful in the Gulf War years earlier (they show a stinger but I assume they meant to attack the Javelin missile, as well as laser guided bombs for some reason). Burton is arguably the villain in reality, being part of a faction in the Pentagon that argued against smart weapons in general and the F15, Abrams and Bradley specifically, all of which perform excellently to this day.
@@mechsquid2 The M113 series APC was made of aluminum, and I would know since I got a license to drive one. From the M113A1 to the M113A3 which has an actual steering wheel instead of 2 sticks, they are made out of aircraft aluminum.
This is just beautiful. Crap happened while I was in the Corps. I was told these were safe, revolutionary, amphibious vehicles. Then I saw one sink in a pond. Cringe.
They are safe, are you dumb enough to take your information from a Hollywood comedy?
11 sank during army testing on amphibious capabilities but the army kept insisting that it was to expensive to conduct a live fire test.
I came here to say the cast and studio now need to write a formal apology to the Bradley.
Look brother, the Bradley turned out OK, however the point of the flick was it was supposed to be an infantry battle taxi…. Get troops from here to there, not a light tank with tank killer capability. We already have tank killing capabilities in the ABRAMS. Obtw I was a tank commander in the 3rd ACR, 10 tanks and 13 Bradley’s.
@@dereklucero5785thank you for your service.
@@dereklucero5785 the Bradley was an IFV from the start, and anyways APCs including the m113 were used as IFVs doctrinally cause leaving your troops to fend for themselves on the front line is apparently “messed up”
While not accurate for the development of the Bradley IFV this movie is accurate for the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate. A Coast Guard cutter design rejected for being unseaworthy, and then sold to the Navy by slapping so many weapon systems and overloading it so much the keel splits in relatively modest seas, doesn't have enough berthing space for the required crew, and to top it off the overpriced last gen equipment mounted on it is so outdated its maximum engagement range is the minimum firing range of any potential adversary.
1:43:40 Great movie!! I was a 19D cavalry scout during the time of this movie. So many things ring true about the attitudes of Army officers during this time period.
This reminds me of when I was there in the Puzzle Palace 2010-2014. I volunteered for Afghanistan just to get the Hell out of there!!!
What a cast, heck of a set of story telling.
Scene 53.52, the best scene in the whole movie,😅😂😅😂, the way they talk about cruelty to sheeps and then eat their meat, is the best sarcasm in this movie
It was a comedy alright but boy does it hit real hard to reality.
Well shit, it doesn't have to be real to be funny. It's funny.
Who's here because Lazerpig?
Fighting the not so good fight against the reformers in the comments ( I have no life and nothing better to do than dispute the claims of reformers and Russian bots)
@@Woodartifact388 probably for the best to be doing that if you have the time to do so
Nice use of Camp Roberts for the field tests
Bradley go Brrrr
why didnt Burton just go to congress and say the army isnt letting him do the test he wanted to do?
Because movie logic. But if you're talking about the real events this movie is based on, Burton did go to to the higher ups to claim he'd uncovered a conspiracy within R&D. They looked into it, and came to the conclusion that Burton was being a petty jerk who was imposing frankly impossible standards on the testing team out of spite. When they recommend Burton be replaced with a different judge, he prematurely retired and wrote his book which the film is based off of. Whether you want to believe Burton's account or the military's I leave up to you.
Why are people in the comments taking it so seriously? It's a movie. Lighten up people. Pretend your parents loved you!
Yeah but it's based kinda real events, only that the tank was actually good, and the main character irl was a dumbass and today works for Russian propaganda media cause got fired
@@RogueBeatsARGIt’s an IFV, not a tank.
@@matthewjones39 I know, was generalizing
No.
regarding the ending: why do the good guys always pay the price and the bad guys get compensated??
I had three jobs where I was marked as a problem. I spoke & wrote the truth, but it would cost to correct the criminality, which had been occurring for a couple decades... In one case... In another it would cost to correct the near criminal, but most certainly immoral activity... In the third... it was lawyers and government actively working to corrode the abilities of everyday people who tried to just do what they could to attempt to improve their lives. I'm now left unemployable, a self-employed handyman, no longer a white-collar professional, designations cancelled. I love my job. I love my clients. I can now do what's right for people without being 'cancelled'. I now can work honestly. I miss my Lagavulan 16, but, hey the odd bottle of Bell's is OK.
Cause author is a liar 😂 fun movie tho
In this movie's case, it was written by the bad guy after he was kicked out by good guys for wasting everyone's time and millions of dollars
Except Burton wasn’t fired, though he should have been.
Quite hilariously, and if you have time of course, take a look at the issues surrounding the British Army's nw Ajax fighting vehicle. The same lunacy infesting American weapons procurement also exists in the UK!
Always has.
13:35 Even most tanks can't survive dedicated anti-Tank rockets. How would you expect it an IFV to survive
All tanks can't survive direct hits
When the not-a-tank doesn’t tank a dedicated tank destroying weapon
I’m a retired auto mechanic, luxury vehicle customizer, and custom firetruck and ambulance builder. The book and the movie were partial inspirations from my book series. I never would have believed the decline and fall of the American work ethic extended to the US military! While in industry when I (or someone like me) was called to correct a defect(s) (a frequently reoccurring defect) when I would “protest“ that it was someone else’s fault I was told “Just fix it!” I would express concerns to my coworkers, crew leaders, supervisors, middle management, upper management, and executives about the time and money we were losing on defect Correction, they would simply reply “You get paid by the hour! What do you care?! “
I hate to be the one to break this to you. But the book and this movie are all fake. Burton was a narcissist who hurt the Bradley's development. It was never intended to be an troop taxi with 12 souls on board, it was designed from the ground up to have the auto cannon and the missiles. And if you don't believe me, then let me ask you this: If Burton truly changed the Bradley. Why is it still an IFV with a chain gun and anti-tank missiles that carries 6 dismounts and fights with them. Instead of the "original" plan for a glorified M113.
@@Error-5478 That’s your opinion. From my experiences in American industry, the “higher-ups” who make lots of money , don’t want some little peon (like me or Burton) rocking the boat. Btw , I was called a narcissist as well.
@@recoveringnewyorker2243theres no opinion here. There's facts and then there's fiction. The facts are that Burtons entire novel was a reaction against the US military Because no one took him and his terrible ideas seriously enough, the novel and later this movie were Essen a result of the axe Burton had to grind against everyone. The evidence is all in how the Bradley preformed in desert storm, it destroyed more enemy vehicles and personel than the Abrams did. I've talked to a few Bradley crewmen from desert storm and after and they all came to the same conclusion even though they didn't even know each other and weren't even talked to at the same time or place, they all came to the conclusion that the Bradley was a decent and capable vehicle, it's not a tank but it's a good vehicle for what it's designed to do
@@apollobravo7654 Thanks to Colonel Burton’s insistence to not just “get it into the field and fix the problems later” You see , I worked in a firetruck and ambulance factory that fulfilled some “Gubment” and military equipment orders. While the military equipment was held to a higher standard , you must remember the standards weren’t very high. I know. I WAS THERE. It’s too bad I can’t name my book series here because KZhead will delete it. I’ve been told it’s quite an eye-opener. However, my book series has the same title as a semi popular song by Kurt Vile.
@@recoveringnewyorker2243 The Bradley was a response to the BMP. It was never designed as a troop carrier. Pentagon Wars is a shameless self-victimization by someone who associates himself with a group called the Reformers who think the M60 is better than an abrams, conceptualized the F-16 as a pure dogfighter with no missiles, and said the F-15 was shit until they took credit of it when everyone started loving it. Burton even proposed an A-10 with nothing but a gun and a radio because he argued electronics are unreliable.
Two words: Bradley Square. 🤣🤣🤣
It does remind me of the NEW Army Combat Uniform lol.
Don't Corruption = Love At Country...in anywhere of World!!
Military industrial complex is alive and well to this day. Ike was right about that (if not a ton else politically speaking)
All the movie does is expose why things cost so much. As the paper work weighs more then the actual project they build. As they have to justify their salaries, pension funds, premium medical etc.. As the Bradly did what is was designed too do. Why they built several variants for each use off the same Chassis over the years.. They just never added Air conditioning. Is that to much too ask for...
great movie
I think the bradley proved its effectiveness in the First Gulf War.
In Ukraine too :)
@@taurusbernadacy3702yah sure 😂😂😂😂
It's definitely proven its ineffectiveness in the Ukraine war.
Only after spending how many billions in addition to the initial $14B?
@@alexG106 If the is Bradley ineffective what's the T90M🤣🤣
Make sure you have your proper "SHEEP-SPECS" !!!
Doesn't Boeing make a lot of equipment for the US military?
Yep, quite a lot...
Death drives a pale blue Mustang.
I'm only 30 minutes into this movie and it's cracking me up! Not because it's outlandish but it's what I'd expect from a bunch of pentagon politicians pretending they are military officers. Thanks for putting this movie up!❤
You know that almost all of this movie was a lie, right?
@@matthewjones39 Yes. It's just a fun work of fiction.
however. The Bradley does a good job in Ukraine instead of the German Marder.
Why isn't the Marder?
@@jimk8520 was that a reply to me? Doesn't explain why the Marder wouldn't be doing a good job.
@@Twiggy163 No, it wasn’t.
@@Twiggy163 Though, now I see why you’d ask. And I agree, what’s wrong with the marder? I think they are both doing a good job in Ukraine. My comment was half sighted as I was only talking about the bradley (I missed the mauder diss entirely) and that it was modified due to lieutenant colonel burton’s persistence. Had the bradley gone into production as intended, it would have been a death mobile for the occupants.
Ooo, result Russian see on Poklonnaya Gora. )))
This is my favorite movie of all time especially with Cary elwes in it he is so handsome and very talented
Amazing
Evil and corruption still wins. Almost always does in real life.
It didn't this time around. The good guys won. Colonel Burton and his insane ideas were told to take a hike.
Yin and Yang, the snake that swallowed its tail.
Why did they shoot a Stinger at a armourd vehicle
im sure most of the stuff in this movie may have some truth to weapons or what not during testing, but I think this movie was made to be funny and a joke for one crowd... the military... hahahah
Sometimes, the truth is funnier than fiction. The Pentagon had its minions blast this movie. So it must contain a lot of truth. The Military can't handle the truth.
As a pentagon minion, I’m here to tell you that this movie is indeed inaccurate, if burton ( and the wider reformers) got their way in having “rugged” weapons it’s generally conjectured that the US would have taken much more casualties in desert storm, and might have even lost
I can't judge how much of this is true or fictional but let's all remember Mark 14 torpedo. I require from all members of QA in my team to learn about this weapon and how NOT TO perform tests.
I recently watched a Bradley documentary on KZhead. The movie is much more fact then fiction and it was based off Colonel Burton's book. Besides the clownish generals, everything the army tried with the Bradley and everything wrong with the vehicle was on point.
@@truthbetold2567Give us some examples.
Never worked in defence, but the scenes where the bradley is being designed ring very true for some of the IT projects that I have been a part of.
@@truthbetold2567Except the Bradley was an absolute powerhouse that performed very well in Desert Storm. It annihilated hundreds of Iraqi vehicles, including tanks.
@@truthbetold2567 The testing depicted in Pentagon Wars was what happened, yes, but Colonel Burton purposefully leaves out key context and portrays it in a negative light, such as filling ammo casings with sand so we could tell which ammo racks were hit and to what extent instead of having all of the rounds detonate and fill the interior with fire. Burton, despite claiming the Bradley was overbudget (which it wasn't), wanted to extensively test how much damage it could take from which directions and which munitions. These tests would have required the destruction of several hundred Bradleys which would definitely have pushed them overbudget. Several hundred destroyed Bradleys to prove an Infantry Fighting Vehicle could not withstand a direct hit from Anti-Tank weapons
Виола Дэвис здесь сразу узнаваема. Голос - музыка!
Seems like the Bradley has proven itself in Ukraine. They must have upgraded it since the time of the movie.
They got the Israeli export version :D
The Bradley has been upgraded multiple times now, from the base original design.
It also proved itself in desert storm. It’s almost like this movie is inaccurate…
@@d.b.5070 The design used in Desert Storm was NOT the design as originally approved.
@@looneyburgmusic My god, its like... it was redesigned multiple times?
This reminds me of the trials to replace the M4 carbine and M16 rifle with something new. The trials have been ongoing for many years and until now have pointed out that the M4 and M16 are still excellent weapons for general infantry. This new M5 costs three times what one fully equipped M4 does. The soldier will only be able to carry half the amount of ammunition. Sound familiar?
At the same time, M5 (now designated as M7) has higher impact energy, has integrated ballistics computer with a rangefinder that accounts for multiple factors like humidity, air pressure, wind, thus making each soldier a marksman.There is no reason to compare it to the M4 or M16 pricewise since those platforms have been in production for decades, thus their production has been optimized multiple times. With the progression of the body armor, 5.56 round is becoming obsolete against modern military force which is packed with body armor. Also evolving threats, like FPV drones, requires further advance in fire control systems so infantry can have lead indicators to shoot those drones down somewhat effeciently. And the cost of M7 will go down when it will go into mass production. E.g. F-35A of the first batch were going around 110 mil apiece. Now the cost of same aircraft is about 83 mil per unit.
It does since even the M16 was berated at first in comparison with the14. Now, then issue is that the US is in a neer-peer fight were the targets may have body armor.
@@Slava_Yarmolenko even though 6.8 has shown no advantages to stopping body armor
Hey, there is a Russian T-34 at 1:06. This is an appropriation!😂
You know the chassis of the t-34 used the American M3 Stuart tank chassis and bearings.
@@bigstyx nope, the T-34 chassis were based on the simplified and upgraded Christie suspension. The design was purchased and legally owned by the Soviets.
i wonder if the part where they are in the steam bath,and he threw the towel in his face was scripted. It was hilarious
that's Clifton Powell, not Charlie Murphy. FFS dude.
@@bobbyrooney my bad
This movie is a criticism of *the process* of design by committee. A lot of bradley fans in the comments trying to defend it in particular, you're missing the point. The bradley, in its modern iteration as an infantry fighting vehicle is ok. But the 'design by comittie' objectively failed in several key ereas: 1.) since bradley is an IFV and not an APC, the m113 is still in service. 2.) since the Bradley was meant to be able to float, the armor was too thin to stop soviet 14.5mm machinegun fire (and later had to be up-armored). 3.) the bradley was too heavy to float. 4.) it took *18 years* to design the thing.
In Australia there is a saying that goes like this: A platypus is a duck designed by committee, I have also heard t say that a camel is a horse designed by committee.
It was a huge failure from the very beginning. It was meant to carry 12 troops but now carries 6 troops.
@@yesiamarussianbot3076 fun fact: camels are much better performers than horses in long and difficult travel conditions
Every now and then Cary’s English accent skips out lol
Spectacular, but not effective as many of American weaponry we pay for.
any one here an SSG?
When meeting the stereo type black sassy female sergeant I just rolled my eyes. There is no way a Sgt. Would speak to a half bird Colonel like that. Total bs.
GEN. BOGDAN FROM SERBIA.
I watched it and I liked it but its a comedy movie almost like hot shot, and should in no way be taken seriously
17 years and 14 billions (with B) for dizain and development. Is that joke or true?
@@zeljkomikulicic4378 It’s like the Titanic. It’s based on true events, it’s just not true.
@@zeljkomikulicic4378 I'm sure you would have done it in your garage for a case of beer.
Bradley fans criticizing the movie seem to not watch it entirely, the modifications on the vehicle to make it safer where done thanks to the live tests .
Not true. The mods were in process long before this horrific hit piece of a propaganda film
@@drewschumann1 🙄🙄Not the film..... the live tests properly done.
@@fernandoi3389yes, the improvements to the Bradley's survivability did begin development, in late 1982. The tests Burton oversaw happened in mid 1984.