What are your opinions on the M113?
>>29354199
Amazing when not compared to other more specialized vehicles. Good for those who don't wanna spend much but wanna have a multi platform vehicle. Just don't expect that it having a gun means that its gonna be an unstoppable killing machine
The armor is shit but I just love how they look.
The Gaven is a quality platform.
>>29354199
It's a sensible and practical design.
Fuck, I'd take one over a BMP-1
>>29354199
Personally I prefer the Pbv 302. If thats because its actually better or just because im a seedfag I dont know.
>>29354199
They're ok off road which is probably the strongest point and they're relatively well made.
The lack of mine/IED protection and fairly shit armour makes them a bit of a nightmare, bit like the old BMP in that regard. You really don't want to see what happens to one of them when hit by anything substantial, its like a handful of frogs in a blender.
>>29354237
The problem with the 302 is it's range.
>>29354199
I wonder if we could make an airborne variant that had a small cannon and armor that could be added on upon landing.
It would make for a really good airborne vehicle then considering the closest we have is the Stryker, and even then the MGS isn't airborne
Is this sparky thread?
>>29354199
Nothing wrong with the design itself; I'm sure if they really cared to, they could make a next-gen 113 with better armour without compromising its mobility.
Probably best used as a rear echelon armoured truck.
Shit armour is better than no armour if artillery hits behind the lines.
I like how versatile they are
>>29354199
the gavin is the greatest armored vehicle designed in history.
If they extended the hull, gave it an 150mm smoothbore and DU armor it would be the best MBT ever devised
It's really old & dated
And the US has blocked upgrades/prevented troops from using it because the generals wanted to push their wheeled stryker disaster.
>>29354199
The Gavin is an excellent vehicle. It should be used to replace all US armour.
>>29354533
The fuck? How could it possibly carry a 105mm, let alone a 150?
>>29354359
>Probably best used as a rear echelon armoured truck.
Maybe, they're fucking slow for dragging stuff around- but they'll go over near anything. I reckon hang a fucking monster MRL system off it
>>29354533
Are you pretending to be retarded?
You better not be.
Were there better options they could have gone with at the time?
>>29354533
pentagon pls
>>29354199
It kinda sucked. It was good for getting guys to the battle, but then so was the Jeep and neither one could take fire very well.
>>29354635
what am I looking at here?
>>29354309
Hmm. Never really thought about that...
Is it comparable or a lot worse than the M113?
>>29354199
Its better than walking.
>>29354957
Someone who messed up when they tried to be informative. The T-80B, BV and T-72B has very different armor. And the turret is from a T-80U wich isnt even mentioned in the pic.
>>29354986
Only if you are a POG.
>>29354619
i would love to have one as a repair truck/mobile workshop
