Comments by "" (@bdinaz) on "Matsimus" channel.

@creevey82 disagree. The lessons actually learned in operational testing of the M2 do not include anything put forth by Burton.
3
@creevey82 okay. I was a platoon leader in 2-41st infantry Battalion of the Tiger Brigade of 2nd Armored Division. Since 2AD was geographically located with TACATA on West Fort Hood who was in charge of operational testing we were the go to unit to provide players for all the testing. We were also on the hook to do other testing that was not as well publicized such as the CANE IIb Mopp gear survivability test, Mobile Subscriber Equipment test etc.. Amazing how thing coming on 40 years still have importance to the force. Where were you in the 80's?
3
@creevey82 Sort of..... It was designed to be an exploitation vehicle that would get onto an objective by destroying the BMP and BTR in its way, (ala table 8 gunnery) then allow dismounted soldiers out to finish clearing the objective. When the objective was cleared they would then go into the defense and fight ala table 12 gunnery. Why did I dislike Burton? Because in both occasions he had to address the officers of the battalion who were being test players he adopted a mannerism of superiority and talked down to us. Comments that I recall was his referring to us as "Clay pigeons" and saying he would not allow his son to be an in fantryman. He also discounted our input to him in AAR's because it did not confirm his pre-test beliefs. Thankfully others took our comments seriously and it formed the basis for product improvements that were made. When you look at it, the Bradley on the J-MTOE allowed for a platoon to put 24 dismounted soldiers out onto the objective. It supplemented those 24 by using four m2's and all the firepower they brought to bear to hold the objective.
3
@dnr0 do not believe anything that egoistic Burton says. I was there as a test player and it was NOT designed to be a transport. It was designed as a cou ter to the BMP series which it did marvelously.
2