Do you want these for USA?
>>29481775
Only as drones.
>>29481775
Why would the US need Wiesels? There's a reason only one country fields them.
not really.
if i lived in london i'd want one, congestion charge exempt.
then again, if i lived in london, i'd probably fucking hang myself.
Sure why not
>>29481785
>Why would the US need Wiesels?
It would make a nice recreational vehicle!
>>29481785
Air transportable heavily armored infantry support excellent for urban combat.
Abrams engine is a burning inferno to stand near, the driver is blind and might run you over, gun so big it's dangerous to be near when firing.
Wiesal is superior for many applications. Can fit down narrow alleyways, for example. Also relatively cheap.
>>29481775
Yes, I would love driving that around town. Top speed is 43 MPH so it will work great for Tucson's potholes and sub 40MPH roads
>>29481869
>heavily armored
Heh.
Anyway, we have Bradleys and Strykers for fire support. It'd just be a waste of money.
>>29481869
They are not heavily armoured in the slightest.
>>29481775
sure.
we could...deploy them from helicopters...
or something.
instead of these.
>>29481928
Poland?
Just buy another JDAM instead of purchasing a Wiesel
Level an entire block instead of zoom around it
That's the American way.
>>29481928
That is a moderately sized can of whoop ass.
>>29481879
invest in your goddamn infrastructure
It's not just the roads, it's your drainage system too
>>29481928
Dual PKM? Noice
>>29481928
Needs more dakka dakka
>>29481963
Hey, fuck off kurwa.
>>29481775
Wiesel a cute
>>29482000
Why invest in infrastructure when you can use the money for dem programs? Besides they will just waste it, just had a big scandal involving construction crews logging extra hours while taking days off at a time.
Such is life in a blue city in a red state.
>>29481775
no, I want the M8
why have a tracked vehicle if its gonna get BTFO by small arms and at most have a 20mm or a TOW?
M8 carries a bigger punch, is able to be air dropped (eat your hearts out Wieselfags) and can have more armor slapped on upon landing (or can fight with its base armor and still hold up better than the Wiesel)
>>29482011
I was just asking if you were Poland because of the PKMs and the M249. S-sorry ;_; I still think you guys are pretty cool.
>>29481869
>Air transportable heavily armored infantry support excellent for urban combat.
wew lad
>>29481782
>Autonomous tanks/UGV's are ok
>Single man "tanks" are not
This is the mindset of an autistic person
>>29482000
"infrastructure investment" is just a meme
the infrastructure is fine
When people say this, what they are saying is "I'm an autist who really likes trains" or "My friends need big government contracts" or "Black people deserve free rapid transit to white areas for rape/robbery/murder"
>>29481869
>heavily armored
Compared to what, a Civic?
If you want a combat vehicle that is light enough to be carried by a helicopter there are better options.
>>29482394
>that plate on that defender in the background
>>29481775
Now that thing is FUCKING CUTE! Goddamn I want like all of them! <3 Fucking ovaries are about to explode up in this goddamn mother fucker.
>>29481869
>glaringly obvious chinese shill syntax
sage goes in all fields
>>29481869
Abrams can fit down narrow alleyways too. Of course it's not a narrow alleyway afterwards..
>>29482902
in the spirit of your comment: "everything is air-droppable at least once"
>>29482350
compared to infantry the 1st generation was protected agains 7.62 the second is proof agains 12.7. Slap some mexas ceramic armor on it and add it organically to al non motorized infantry units for fire support
>>29481869
Air transportable in stealth gliders?
>>29483095
No, stealth gliding battleships.
>>29482309
Nothing autistic about not wanting said single driver to get fucking wasted in his little tankette.
Drones would be able to be more heavily armoed as they don't need a crew compartment. And of course more expendable then a useless tankette.
>>29482962
Will third gen be proof against 14.5 or will they forever get fucked up by anything with a KPV?
>>29483137
Does it have ski jumps?
>>29482962
hol up
hol up
u sayen
u sayen
u sayen can kill it with a kpv and you don't find that troubling
>>29481782
>drones
we call them "marines" in the USA.
>>29482962
>the second is proof agains 12.7
It's also twice as big, you chucklefuck.
The U.S. should invest in a small gun carrier. Maybe not the wiesel, but the concept of a STANAG 4569 level 4 vehicle that carries 4 people and is tracked has merit.
At the very least, there is an export market for it, judging by how often smaller nations upgrade their armored vehicles.
>>29481775
Yes. For duck hunting.
>>29481775
Ranger Regiment tested them at Ft. Benning in 2002.
>>29481775
Only use I can see for them is for the Marines. They might find them handy.
>>29483398
Because they're both retarded?
![BrenCarrier[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fADIl0g.jpg "BrenCarrier[1].jpg")
US should invest in modernizing the Bren Carrier.
>>29481928
>Polaris
The Wiesels are probably cheaper too.
>>29483215
I don't think the US is capable of buying it
Too many retards who'll go "but how will it fight MBT's?"
>>29483421
> put m240 into carrier
> is now modern
>>29483479
Not to mention they already have 2000+ MBTs as it stands.
No need for a tiny tankette when you can just move your hundreds of M1A2s anywhere around the globe with the massive logistical capacities of the USAF / USN.
>>29482525
triple k mafia lol
>>29483416
Because the Marines have a use for heliborne semi-armoured weapons carriers.
>>29483421
>>29483489
>Modernized engine and drive train.
>Kevlar spall protection.
>MaDuce.
Super M2 Carrier, AWAY!!!
>>29483530
I don't think you understand. They aren't comparable. And the tiny little tankette is certainly a lot more strategically mobile. It's apples to oranges, but you're just too fucking retarded to understand that.
>>29483555
Only thing marines need is more tanks
>>29483574
Gliderfag pls go.
>>29483479
The US isn't going to buy any for the same reason the British have moved away from them, vehicles like these die in droves and lack the flexibility more combat capable vehicles provide.
>>29483589
Sure they do
But the alternative is not use M1's or M2's, the alternative is use infantry or don't do at all.
>>29483377
What was the result from that testing? Did they try them out as infantry support in urban environment?
>>29481775
Yes, for civilians. All normal cars should be replaced with tankettes.
>>29483602
The hatches aren't even armored to withstand 7.62x39.
>>29483421
I want one, modernized or not
>>29483573
Naw, the USA already has a pair of parachuting small "tanks", it doesn't need a third one that's inferior.
>>29481775
It looks like one of the GI Joe vehicles your dirt-poor cousin had... the ones on the cart, not in a box.
>>29483639
?
name them
>>29483654
Sheridan isn't around anymore but at the time it still was. Also I remember seeing some being used for security after that ft Hood shooting.
The LAV-25 is air droppable too, but I don't consider that a tank, but I'm pretty sure a stryker is as well.
>>29483681
>>29483654
They're more "tanks" than what this Wiesel is, that's for sure.
M551 Sheridan
M8 Bullford
Was what I was going to say. But yeah, the light 6 and 8 wheelers can also fit the same roles by swapping out the turrets.
>>29482329
Fixing Potholes and shit intersections =/= massive train projects.
>>29483601
>But the alternative is not use M1's or M2's,
The alternative is using M2's and Humvees (soon to be replaced with JLTV's).
>>29483747
If local areas spend their money on gimmedats instead of fixing pot holes
There is nothing the federal government can do to change that
>>29483639
It doesn't.
>>29483681
Neither are air dropped.
>>29483734
They aren't used.
This puts aside the point that the Wiesel isn't airdroppable, it's helicopter mobile. A helicopter can grab one off the deck of an amphib and bring it directly to battle.
And it doesn't need to be a tank. Just a weapons platform armored against small arms. Gives the marine landing forces a good deal of tactical mobility and firepower before the heavier gear rolls inland.
>>29483747
How about the crumbling bridges and tunnels and interstate highways that are shot to hell in a lot of place?
>>29483971
A c-130 could snatch a glider off the deck of an amphib
Think of the possibilities
>>29483971
I said its airdroppable, but I know its historically not.
>>29483971
>>29483994
>>29484135
"everything is airdroppable at least once"
>>29484135
Sure you air drop it
And the whole thing is fucking broken
Or course its still in one piece, so maybe thats a successful drop
>>29481775
For personal use yes.
>>29483193
>twice as big
Not even one and a half
>>29483175
>>29483171
Is the 14.5 really that much higher energy than a .50?
>>29481775
I've always wondered, how thick is the armour here?
It looks really (REALLY) fugging prone to anti-materiel rifle fire.
>>29484537
the whole thing is prone to .22
>>29481775
If they update it with a better engine, larger fuel tank and modern armor, then hell yes. As it stands it's more than a little outdated.
>>29484537
>some rated for 7.62 & 12.7mm
no fucking shit
>>29484609
all it is, is a smaller, shittier M113.
If they spent some money on the M113 to cut its weight while increasing survivability it would be a GOAT airborne vehicle platform
>>29484710
M113 DOESNT FIT IN A FUCKING HELICOPTER
>>29484526
Even 12.7 soviet is supposedly twice as potent as .50bmg
>>29484726
it fits in ur moms vagina tho
I was made to hide in the forests of West Germany and pop out for hit and run attacks.
It sucks in any other environment and any other situation.
>>29484767
745 grains at 2756 f/s for the 12.7 Russian
709 grains at 2850 f/s for the .50 BMG
.50bmg has 1.7% more energy
>>29484609
Or they could just put a 25mm turret on a Stryker and call it a day.
>>29484918
TIL that they're already putting a 30mm chaingun onto some Strykers.
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/the-30-millimeter-solution-army-upgunning-strykers-vs-russia/
>>29484918
>>29485022
Supposedly the first one has already been made.
>>29485188
I know they've been tested those before. Are you stating that the first operational one (meant for specific units) has been made or that the first one of its kind has been made?
Because those are two different things and have different implications
>>29485517
According to that picture, which was taken during a presentation at AUSA Global last month, the first actual Stryker with a new roof and MCT-30 turret was being assembled in March.
>>29485637
nice. Any idea how the new weapon system will affect its weight/transport capabilities?
>>29485688
No idea about the weight, but the MCT-30 turret does not intrude into the passenger compartment so Strykers should still be 2+9.
>>29484918
Strykers are air mobile now?
>>29481928
>Twin M240's
>>29485842
Strykers have always been air mobile.
>>29481928
needs more dakka
>>29485943
This is new to me, what the fuck can carry it?
>>29485890
Those are PKMs m80. Could only be sexier if they were MG3s.
>>29486029
C130's probably. Navy fag here so no idea if they actually can or not.
>>29486029
C-130's and larger.
>>29486067
>>29486079
>air mobile
>C-130
No
>>29481785
Because they're cute.
>>29486182
>I'll put a TOW into you
>>29486101
Oh, you mean air assault.
>>29482000
Tucson is being saved as a potential bargaining chip for Mexico, so not much is being invested in it.
Yes, I'm from Phoenix.
>>29481928
this could be a drone
send them out in swarms
>>29486336
Sounds too expensive, even miniaturizing a small tracked vehicle with an MG would be pointless.
>>29486444
Depends entirely on the scenario
>>29481775
Im going to Operate with These in something months, fucking cant wait for it
>>29486473
Eh, I don't know mayne. Polaris cars are expensive as hell but are pretty fun to drive.
>>29481775
I could design a better variant than that. It would be single manned too. Easier to protect that way. Small munitions are hard to catch on fire. Especially with more tin in the brass than 14% load, it makes it unuseful after one shot, which would eject externally. Conical turret by cylindrical pivot arm. Autoloader .50cal or 20mm, but no bigger or the accelerant when perforated will be too high (looking at you 105mm->120mm abrams) for its capacity to cook off without igniting the other rounds in the bay.
It would be so, oh so much better than that 1990's 'innovation' tankette. It would be able to aim 89deg up with that space. We can't have titanium tankettes, just 4in. of it angled can take 20mm penetrators. All it needs for a tankette. It would be much lighter so it can handle the larger gun+mechanisms.
But hey, we're modern 1940's tech just finding new configurations for it for ease of manufacturing it. For about 150 units then halting production. Fuck current militech.
>>29486588
>88
>1940's
>tankette with long 88mm
must be done
>>29481775
I like how this entire thread is basically a bunch of retards trying to pretend like this is totally a tank and then going "yeah but it's really a terrible tank!!"
It's actually a fucking weapons carrier. No matter what anyone says, German military doctrine uses it as an air-assault weapons platform that basically gives nearby infantry squads more firepower.
US military doctrine would use it for the same exact fucking thing, nobody would ever go "yes, this totally needs to be part of our mechanized infantry battalions." Well I certainly hope not, but then again the Pentagon's had it's share of retarded mongoloids who would, true to form, treat this like a tank and then wonder why it can't do tank things.
Even if it was put in a mechanized infantry role it would, at most, augment existing heavier vehicles. That's a big if though, considering everything about this screams "please, give me to your air cav and marines, I was built to ride in a helicopter!"
>>29483756
Chain the gimmedats together and make them fix the potholes!
2 birds one stone.
>>29486643
I think you're right on all counts. It definitely has it's place. Most leaders would not know this place if they were in it and being shot at.
Also
>I was built to ride in a helicopter
pic related.
>>29486643
You didn't actually read the thread, did you.
how about instead of this;
>take tracked skidsteer from JD/caterpillar/some other contractor
>add some armor and a better engine
>put a mk19/m2 on the bucket mount
>add aiming camera to the gun
>have little console thing incab so you can see where you're shooting
>add trigger on control joystick
>now you have a humvees' worth of firepower in a small, light, mobile package that is about the size of a forklift
>>29482046
Congratulation, you managed to find the only pic of a Wiesel that's even more tiny than the Wiesel itself.
>>29483556
Top protection might not be a bad idea either, and I'm thinking a more advanced aloy armor and maybe some ceramic in there for good measure
>>29483574
>Only thing marines need is more brains.
FTFY.
>>29482078
Well, we aren't called 'choleric nation' without reason. Sorry, shitty politics tend to raise blood pressures.
>>29481775
I live in Germany and find those to be unbelievably cute when met. irl. Seems fun as a driving experience. Are they practical? Who knows, middle European land is kinda unique and Wiesels are supposed to work here.
>>29481816
Wiesel racing league!
>>29482057
I think idea here was to use them in hunting packs as ambushers during opening assault of soviets over poland/easter germany. Delaying and stuff.
And whole region of operation is full of forest patches. wiesels are small profile targets that GO!FAST and fit where bigger vehicles don't, at least without >>29482902 this.
>>29482350
Armored enough to withstand infantry basic weapons, everything else is a nono.
>>29483639
This isn't a tank. this is pretty much fast guncarrier/self propelled rocket launcher with pretty nifty com systems.
>>29484537
It is supposed to be eight er hiding in an ambush or run like hell trough
forests.
>>29484710
And faster.
>>29484793
Should work around cities and villages. Also, landscape of everything from polish eastern border up to Spain looks pretty much identical, being patchwork of towns, farmland and lots of trees. Reforestation after world war was taken seriously here.
>>29486182
Heh.
>>29481782
>tfw no tank drones
>>29483431
It literally looks like a mall ninja bought a ranchers old ATV and duracoated it and tried making it a technical.
Middle eastern Toyota technicals are probably better.
>>29486588
>It would be single manned too
That's retarded. There's no way one person can navigate, drive, keep track of comms and unit coordination, watch for threats and obstacles all while actively and accurately engaging an enemy as is required in a combat scenario.
The rest of your post is just garbage. Most of that shit already exists on Wiesel variants and you've specified in no way how your design would actually be better.
I need one
>light
>fast
>mounts a 25mm fucking chaingun
I think /k/ is completely lost when discussing anything over 9mm
.50 cal rapes shit
25mm automatic gun is something you never ever want to be on the bad side of and is an asset in any fight you're gonna be in
>>29487802
Drone? Isn't that just the glorious s-tank?
>>29487866
They made some remote controlled prototypes of the S tank in the 90's but they never entered service.
As a former Fallschirmjäger i know the wiesel pretty well. We had a heavy company in our battalion which uses wiesel 1 and 2. Its amazing to see an ch-53 which has an wiesel via external load and another two as internal... In most situations you will use this Waffenträger in ambush situations. With the help of some showels, manpower and bushes you can make em nearly invisible. Once you have engaged the enemy you have to switch positions.
>>29487802
>tfw no tank-dronefu that will penetrate your anus with her mortar and will blow her 120mm load deep into your stomach, while making angry motor sounds
Why even live?
peep peep
I want one for my house
>>29484526
32 kJ as opposed to 18 kJ. Yes, it is really that much higher energy.
>>29486101
Anon, you're being retarded. That is air mobile. They can't be lifted by helicopters, which is what you were wanting to talk about.
>>29487826
i can do all that and more if you give me an xbox controller and a headset
left stick is vehicle
right stick is gun
i have my feet for additional controll and some buttons
>>29481869
>heavily armored
It's FRONT barely keeps out 7.62 AP. The sides can be penetrated by fuckin' 5.56 hitting at a flat angle. .50 goes right through on any angle on any side.
>excellent for urban combat
NOPE. Pratically less armor than a beefed-up Hummer and the autocannon versons have actually pretty limited elevation and depression.
The Wiesel is a weapons carrier. It's built to give air/heliborne troops heavy weapons support, so they cn function with german Cold War-era airborne doctrine* in mind.
*IE, using air-dopped or heloed-in infantry as a quick-reaction defense force mean to slow down a mechanised push so slower heavy formations can be moved in to stop it.
>>29481869
>heavily armored
>excellent for urban combat
Do you even know what a Wiesel is?
The joke is that Germany is the tank nation but Germany itself is quite the shitty country to operate tanks.
The Wiesel gives the infantry superior firepower and mobility, while the enemy can't deploy anything heavier.
>>29484710
>cut its weight while increasing survivability
Those two tend to be mutually exclusive.
>>29482002
Those aren't PKMs, you fucking moron
>>29481869
>heavily armored
Kek
>>29489761
>>29489733
Wiesels do fine in urban combat senpai, though excellent is pushing it.
>>29481775
Make it shorter and taller.
>>29489789
..wat?
Even the worse parts of the country are still passable to tanks and northern Germany is some of the best tank country you're going to find in Europe.
The Wiesel is NOT for mobility. It's to give airmobile infantry enough heavy firepower to have at least a chance to slow down a full-on mechanised force. It's literally meant to help going up against heavy armor and mech infantry and not getting completely stomped.
>>29489957
Eh. They're a bit vulnerable, but I suppose if properly supported by infantry they'd do a decent job.
>>29488485
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=air+mobile+definition
>>29489957
They're doing fine in the same way that a Technical or Hummer would be doing fine - being used as mobile support weapons along long fire lanes and hoping to not get hit by anything substantial ever.
The entire thing with using vehicular support in full-on MOUT is that you want to bring the heaviest you can. Heavier IFVs and espeially MBs just are a hell of a lot more resilient against the kind of firepower any vee is going to attract in a street battle.
>>29489989
Seeing as how the Sheridan and Locust were called airmobile without being heliborne...
>>29490002
At the same time, lighter vehicles have always been used successfully. Direct firing artillery and such vehicles as the Ontoss have proven invaluable. So yes, while having the armor is definitely far better, not having it doesn't make it merely decent.
>>29488590
>implying
Dedicated gunners already struggle with maintaining situational awareness and target tracking through remote weapon stations compared to manual control. And drivers struggle even more just navigating and driving through less than permissible terrain. There's a reason single seater ground combat vehicles essentially don't exist.
Soon on the market.
Why isn't there a single FPS/simulator where i could drive one?
>>29490002
Bringing the heaviest you can is superb, provided you manage to get it there in time. The Wiesel may have limited combat capacity, but it get there before anyone else does. It can scout ahead, create openings and buy time while the heavy stuff gets in place. It can be deployed when and where something heavier can't.
Forcing an entrenched enemy from an urbanized location with superior armor is good, but getting there before the enemy can establish a proper foothold is best.
And like any modern weapon carrier it can make for a fine tank killer/fire support vehicle to back up the heavy armor when it arrives.
>>29490063
There's Armored Warfare if you're willing to grind a few hundred hours for it.
>>29490026
I'm really curious what exact modifications the 2A72 had to go through to fit on that without wrecking it. The variant is called ABM M30-M3 but I can't find any specifications.
>>29490164
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lC5DCk72c4
Holy shit that looks like fun
>>29489971
Did you like miss the Cold War?
There are like two areas which are large enough for large tank movements.
Germany is full of forests, small towns, fleets and other non tank friendly things.
>>29481775
Civilian or military?
>>29490381
>not knowing the Northern German Plain
And you dare mention the Cold War without knowing this.
>>29481775
While an actual light tank a-la the M8 AGS would be preferable, or at least something local-made, at this point we need /something/ to fill in the niche left behind by the Sheridan, and if means taking Panzer I 2.0, than so be it. The Abrams is already half-German anyway.
>>29490381
>Germany is full of forests
Didn't they clear a good chunk of them out to give their tanks better lanes of fire during the Cold War? Forests were pretty sparse in Hessen when I was there 2 years ago.
>>29490542
This ain't a tank, or anything like it. Plus, the Army's on the warpath about MPF, which is essentially the M8.
>>29487826
>That's retarded. There's no way one person can navigate, drive, keep track of comms and unit coordination, watch for threats and obstacles all while actively and accurately engaging an enemy as is required in a combat scenario.
Oh no anon, now someone is gona use your post in a "/K/ being wrong about everything in the history of mankind" strawman image.
>>29490637
History has proven him right thus far.
>>29490449
I fucking live in Niedersachsen. Literally in the middle of so called plain. Oh, it is flat, sure. But there is no open terrain to speak of. Maybe twenty years ago it was different but now it's farmland and trees. Lots of trees.
Also, ground waters are sitting rather high and heavy farm equipment tends to get jammed into mud pretty often.
>>29490581
They did but since then nature reclaimed lots of it. I mean, it is not old growth forest but it's dense enough to be an obstacle.
If this thread is active tomorrow I'll drive around and post some pictures
>>29481775
Yes, because they're kawaii as fuck.
>>29490848
I want it as personal vechicle. With better engine, driven like Leona's Bonaparte.
>>29484272
it's now an airdropped bunker
>>29490022
If they had better situational awareness, displays & controls, then that isn't a problem.
>>29491176
No amount of screens and hotkeys will make up for the fact that you've only got one pair of eyeballs and just two hands. Never mind that even the best mind can only juggle so many tasks.
>>29491713
Computers can drive vehicles
Computers can identify, target, and follow an enemy
So the tank itself should operate largely autonomously with the individual crewman being a commander, not trying to do every job at once
>>29491777
>Computers can drive vehicles
Not over difficult terrain
>Computers can identify, target, and follow an enemy
all of my lel
you are dumb, you are so dumb
>>29491013
>airdropped bunker
This should be a thing
>>29491804
yes over difficult terrain
you don't think a computer can spot an enemy vehicle after its fired at you better than a person with their fucking eyeballs?
>>29491878
This isn't I Robot.
In the real world, the first law of robotics is "this shit never fucking works."
>>29491890
Maybe government contractors can't do it, so they should hire Google to produce their autodriver and autogunner
>>29491878
>you don't think a computer can spot an enemy vehicle after its fired at you better than a person with their fucking eyeballs?
No. No it can't. Why do you think it's so "obvious" that it could.
>>29491904
Because I absolutely know the F-35 has this capability
>>29491902
Your presumption that this would work in an at all efficient manner isn't shared by anyone else.
>>29491925
Not only do I still think you are vastly overestimating technology, but literally anything is easier to spot with a bird's eye view. Jets are the only combat vehicles crewed by one because of the unique advantages of air-to-mud and the relative simplicity of air-to-air. Even then, if any seriously advanced munition is to be used or they're flying in adverse weather a second crew member is needed. And that's not mentioning the aircraft responsible for the logistics that allows everyone else to fly in coordination.
>>29481775
looks like it should be piloted by the three stoogers
>>29481928
looks like a fucking golf cart
Can it stand up to HMG/AMR ?
>>29491925
>Something brand new, multi-billion dollar with a sensor at 20,000 feet can identify missile launches
Gee I wonder why tanks can't do this
>>29492185
Imagine for a second what a brand new multi-billion dollar super tank would look like
>>29481775
literally a cuck tank
>>29491890
fucking capped
>>29492207
Like this. I don't think there's anything unrealistic about the Scorpion design.
Honestly though tanks and artillery should be combined into a single platform.
>Normal tank
>design a gun that can elevate all the way up
>targeting software upgrade
Now you have a tank that is also artillery. Easy.
>>29492288
>4 separate treads
You are retarded
>>29492105
Except unmanned groudn vehicles have always been a part of these modernization programs, so you are just talking out of your ass
Just because the US has basically ignored army procurement for several decades now doesn't mean these things are impossible
>>29492308
quad treads are the future
>>29492288
There's a difference between artillery and effective artillery and that lesson was learned the hard way in WWI
>>29492207
They're called Bolos son, or every tank looking boss in any western or japanese game ever.
>>29492288
>tanks and artillery should be combined into a single platform
or
>super maneuverable low profile artillery platform that can go almost anywhere
>WITH LEGS
>mechafags blowing their loads wordlwide
>>29492288
>Now you have a tank that is also artillery. Easy.
You have a very small caliber "artillery" system that has extremely limited ammunition stores.
Great.
>>29492365
A weapon to surpass metal gear
>>29492325
>Except unmanned groudn vehicles have always been a part of these modernization programs
And look at their immense success. At least unmanned has the advantage of not taking any casualties and possibly being operated by many people simultaneously. That's a vast difference from a single crewed ground combat vehicle. And yet it still hasn't taken off anywhere other than EOD.
>Just because the US has basically ignored army procurement for several decades now
If the US won't sink the dollars into it noone will.
>doesn't mean these things are impossible
You have nothing but your presumptuous insistence that it is possible as argument. Literally all real world evidence weighs against you.
You are this stupid.
>>29492374
nope
You build the tank with 150mm main gun
Can fire lower velocity artillery rounds, or high velocity anti-armor sabots
Adding larger ammo racks isn't a big deal
This vehicle should also be able to link with radar & engage flying targets.
Multi-role is the future, shoot at everything you can aim at.
>>29492416
>Adding larger ammo racks isn't a big deal
>>29492429
>Adding a box on the back of turrets/vehicle is difficult
>Adding a trailer is difficult
no
>>29492439
when did you see a tank with a trailer last time?
>>29492439
>open storage waiting to be set off by anything incendiary
>dragging a trailer into combat
>trusting a trailer with anything
>2012+4
>>29492451
>>29492464
We need military trailers
Armored against small arms/RPG-7s
>>29492507
>Composite armor+Depleted Uranium protected trailers
Fund it.
>>29492507
Here's your trailer. It's autonomous too.
>>29492592
Whole point of a trailer is that its not another vehicle
Same reason why literally everyone uses one in the private sector
Maybe the military needs more budget cuts
>>29492610
But then how will it shoot back?
>>29492617
the squad of dismounts in it
>>29492639
>trojan trailer
Just when they think they've managed to catch something good...
>>29492713
Call it a modern chariot
Who needs APC's?
>>29492720
You could get a couple of Big Dogs to pull it
>>29492732
nono
you get abrams and bradleys to pull them
>>29492747
But then they have to pull several of them to make it worth the effort. Like some kind of battle train.
>>29492760
No, just one each
Maybe two if its flat ground
>>29483991
>>29483747
>>29482329
>>29482046
>>29482000
tfw your infrastructure is such a joke even other countries tell you to fix it and your countrymen's only reaction is to blame other people.
for the greatest country on earth, we're awfully shit, id hate to see what other countries are like if we're the best.
>>29492954
maybe you shouldn't fall for stupid liberal memes
>>29493058
maybe you should try reading a book?
>>29493067
fuck you and fuck your trains
>>29492308
>You are retarded
You do realize that they've been trying to do that since the beginning of armored warfare right? Of course you don't, you're an idiot, but consider this:
An armored vehicle takes a blow from an ATGM to the road wheel and blows it clean off, shearing the links and creating a big fucking problem for the crew. Normally this would mean the tank is fucked six ways from Sunday, but not this tank! This tank still has traction on both sides, so the front drive spins and spins until it dumps the track on the road (to prevent binding) and the rear reverses the tank slowly back the way it came. This works for ATGMs, mines, fucking anything that would otherwise cripple an armored vehicle and leave it vulnerable.
Plus it opens up the opportunity to have much, much, much greater mobility over rough terrain. Instead of having one long unit of grip surface that will span gaps that would trap wheels the independently mobile units will be able hug boulders and the sides of ditches. Powered suspension would also keep the entire vehicle as low as possible, so much so that a tank could slink over obstacles and barriers like a centipede while keeping it's hull level to prevent exposure to the underside.
>>29492288
Even ignoring the treads, the deliberately high profile, poorly protected crew compartment, hideous misuse of titanium (hint: it's WEAKER than the RHA), and the fact that it weights more than the M1 while offering inferior protection makes it a shit MBT. The fact it's as heavy as the former means it's also a poor excuse of a light tank: the Scorpion's existance could probably be attributed to whatever the Haloverse's R&D department is shatting out a "new" product cause' god forbid they repurpose an old design, even if it would be better in every way, when they can instead try and reinvent the wheel in the most inefficient manner as possible.
>>29483421
How cheap would a surviving Universal carrier be?
I mean they shit them out by the thousands and they got pretty well dispersed around the globe
I've always thought they were neat
>>29481869
>Air transportable
Like most APCs in the US inventory
>heavily armoured
Lolno
>Infantry support
Until someone decides to hit it with a WW2 tier AT weapon.
>excellent for Urban combat
>can't even take 12.7mm
>entire point of these was air deployable TOW and 20mm guns that could be quickly deployed anywhere in Germany to kill tanks and APCs
They are shit. If they were good, other nations would use them. They are basically a mobile gun that can potentially survive full size rounds as long as you are forward facing and god fucking forbid a Russian sees you while in ANY vehicle because you aren't stopping 12.7mm, let alone 14.5mm.
Wiesels are shit and always have been. They are essentially last resort death traps designed to counter armoured pushes and support tanks. They are JUST well armoured enough to potentially survive 1950s artillery being detonated somewhere within 20m of them but they aren't reliably protected against ANYTHING other than the smallest of small arms.
>>29493081
fucking hell its not about trains (though public transport is good. ever tried to drive in or around a city?) its about being a leading world power with a world driving economy and being a shit heap. did you read the panama papers? that shit shouldnt be allowed.
>>29492954
>>29493058
>>29493081
>maybe you shouldn't fall for stupid liberal memes
Shit infrastructure isn't a meme you retard, we civil engineers have been screaming and shouting about this since the early 90's and we're slowly being proven right.
Trying not to dox myself but: in 2005 my then boss was consulted about the I-35W by an interested party in Hennepin County, and his answer was pretty clear after looking at the bridge: it had several flaws and needed not only maintenance but structural flaws present since construction needed to be addressed. Two years later that bridge collapsed, it killed a bunch of people. My boss (and me, I was fresh out of university at the time) wasn't the only one, I believe there was a study conducted in 2006, one in 2002 (I think) and they all said more or less the same thing and after the fact the NTSB's own findings agreed with all of us. Make no mistake, the I-35W bridge was one of many bridges that are to this day complete death traps waiting to spring on unsuspecting motorists. This isn't just limited to bridges either, this country is literally falling apart and you can cry and scream and spout some memes about Europeans and their trains but in the end you're still wrong.
>>29493229
You didn't read the Panama papers either. You don't know shit about nothing.
>>29493252
you can literally just walk under (picky almost any bridge in the country) and see it literally falling apart. the same goes for roads and buildings and everything.
>>29493256
of course i didnt read the entire 90 thousand pages or whatever it was. i read what a reputable source told me it said. (motherjones, bbc, bunches of talked about it)
the point is, spending money on our own country isnt a bad thing. we need roads. we need education. we need herd immunity. we need research. we need to be competitive.
we dont need to defund the military like some democrats are saying but we sure as shit need to fund other things too.
>>29493349
>you can literally just walk under (picky almost any bridge in the country) and see it literally falling apart
Yep, but nobody's listening to the ASCE and when something does happen we get looked at like we've been hiding information about these problems.
"WHO DESIGNED THIS!?!?!"
Somebody back in the 1950's or 1960's, and since then it hasn't been taken care of at all! Then people ask why we didn't say anything or why we didn't try to make it an issue, but the thing is we have been. We've been trying very hard to get not just the general public aware of it (news stations do not give a shit unless it's a slow day) but also trying to get legislators aware. We've managed to get through to the Pentagon a little bit, USACE listens to us, but even then their reach is about as limited as ours.
>>29481775
Just give us the data package.
>>29492185
Because ground clutter is a thing, you fucking mong.
Also, cost.
Also, giving the other side a free shot at killing your shit before you can identify them isn't ideal to begin with.
>>29493252
If a blue city would rather spend their money on gimmedats to darkies than fixing bridges
That's not a federal problem, or even a state problem
This is a liberal thing, or just a democracy thing, all the money is already spent ahead of time on vote buying welfare.
>>29492288
>Like this. I don't think there's anything unrealistic about the Scorpion design.
Shitty overcomplicated drivetrain design for no good reason. Dumb open cockpit situated at the front of the tank screaming for everyone to gank the driver. Gigantic profile with an anemic gun. One crewman having to do everything means he is constantly overworked and incapable of actually performing properly in combat because real life does not work like video games.
>Now you have a tank that is also artillery. Easy.
Also, your tank is now really fucking big and heavy because it needs a higher-calibre gun to do the artillery job well enough and it needs a way higher, larger-profile turret to allow for that kind of gun elevation and you then have to armor that increased profile.
In the end, you get an overweight, oversized monstrosity that's fine (if overly complicated and expensive) for artillery and sub-par for tank work because of how big (and overly complicated and expensive) a fucking target it is.
>>29493673
Ground clutter is solved by greater processing power
It's not like any human is going to identify a camoflaged tank/target before it moves or fires at them
>>29493517
im going to write to my representatives about this
>>29493749
>Ground clutter is solved by greater processing power
Wishful thinking.
>It's not like any human is going to identify a camoflaged tank/target before it moves or fires at them
Yes, yes they in fact will quite often. Because we're plain better at this than any computer system ever designed or even seriously proposed as feasible. "Seriously" in this case meaning by people with an actual clue about this shit, not armchair idiots on /k/.
>>29493795
Thats what they said about chess and go, a computer won't be better than a person
For tasks like this, its just a question of programming, databases, and processing power.
>>29493163
>They are essentially last resort death traps designed to counter armoured pushes and support tanks.
But that's wrong. They are paratrooper fire support. The entire point of the Wiesel is to be air mobile.
>>29493806
You sound like you know what you're talking about
>>29494364
You sound like some sort of luddite who thinks its impossible because they don't have a big billion dollar program doing it today.
>>29493698
>If a blue city
It's not "a blue city." It's all cities. Every single major city in the United States has at least ten infrastructure issues, if they're not already known about I'm certain if a team of engineers took even a precursory glance at what the city has in place they could find something.
Speaking of "blue vs red," California is a great example, between the ASCE and the USGS there's been plenty of voices warning what would happen if there were a major earthquake. Some of these have been listened to over the years but it's not enough. It's never enough, California's levees are absolutely not prepared for a tsunami, of it's bridges 2,769 out of 24,955 are deficient, 34% of the major public roadways are deficient, and don't even get me started on water. California has been warned for decades about water, but the only thing people seem to care about is earthquakes. On that note, if there was significant activity in the San Andreas fault there simply is not enough state and federal resources to adequately handle the subsequent disaster zone.
>>29493792
Thank you. I urge more people to do this, especially if you live in an area prone to natural disasters. Katrina should have been a wakeup call but it wasn't, everyone hee'd and haw'd about how woefully unprepared New Orleans was but ultimately nobody cared after awhile. I only need to point to the lack of preparedness that was evident in subsequent hurricanes to show that the rest of the country is not getting the hint.
>>29494707
It is a blue thing, theres no money for spending on "infrastructure" because you'd have to either raise taxes or cut spending to get it
Something dems won't do, and if republicans do it will probably cost them the next election.
>>29493698
That is not how this works. That is not how any of that works. It is still a federal issue because it isn't just cities it is the whole fucking country's interstates. Boston is a "blue city", as you put it, and their infrastructure is top tier because they got federal money to move the interstate out of the centre of the city.
>>29481775
sooooo cuuuuuuuuute! must have!
I'll name him George and pet him and feed him everyday!
>>29486588
The main reason why you get cook off in the 120mm is the combustible cases. The 105's are much less prevalent of an issue.
>>29494707
>Tuscon
>worth investing in
lol nope
>>29494735
>Something dems won't do, and if republicans do it will probably cost them the next election.
>if republicans do it will probably cost them the next election.
Aside from not knowing what you're actually talking about you just contradicted yourself. On one hand you're saying the Democrats won't raise taxes (despite the fact that it's their modus operandi) and on the other Republicans won't do that either. So again, it goes back to my original goddamn point:
>>29494707
>It's not "a blue city." It's all cities.
>It's all cities
Again, to be absolutely crystal clear: this is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a people-don't-give-a-shit thing.
>>29494757
Yea sure if the feds give you a blank check to be spent only on your infrastructure, sure you'll fix the problem.
The main problem is government waste/inefficiency, along with all the existing money being consumed by welfare.
No reason why the city couldn't have a budget surplus and then pay for these things itself.
>>29481775
Really impressed they managed to build a working 30mm autocannon for that tiny thing.
>>29494661
Yes, I believe that if the trillions of dollars being sunk into defense aren't coming up with something that is even remotely close to your fantasies that they are unfeasible.
But hey, don't let me hold back your make believe.
>>29495497
Yes because the trillions of dollars that go to paychecks, pensions, maintenance, operations, procurement, and everything else that isn't development work on UGV's somehow contributes to developing autonomous ground vehicles, right?
>>29495572
You say that like funds are somehow lacking for UGVs just because less than the entire budget is sunk into it.
Face it, you have no evidence in your favor. Your arguments are nothing but poorly thought out fantasies. You can't even specify how things would work out, you just blather about if more resources were things would work out somehow. Kind of like how congress has been blathering about how if "nerds" just put their heads together they could come up with a "safe" backdoor to encryption. You literally don't understand the issues involved, you don't even try. All you do is insist that it's possible based on nothing but presumption and conjecture.
You are genuinely retarded.
>>29483215
The US is not capable of buying a combat vehicle that isn't armored against 12.7mm. Sorry.
>>29496572
14.5mm*
>>29496476
Autonomous ground vehicles is still very much a new thing.
Yes, funds are lacking for procurement & development of new ground vehicles in the US military
The major funding is going to the airforce & navy procurement.
Thse things take time & budget, if they don't have a billion dollar budget devoted to it, then progress will be slow.
>You can't even specify how things would work out
It works exactly the same way a human does things, except faster & more precise.
You build databases of terrain you can travel over, teach it to not run into big trees, over cliffs, how to find cover, how to follow roads/paths, etc
