What makes a good IFV?
What qualities should a IFV have that if it were to miss said qualities, it would be a bad IFV?
>>29798728
> see M113 For good qualities.
/thread
>>29798728
IFVs should be Infantrymen with parachutes on their backs.
Geronimo!
>>29798732
He didn't say APC, anon. He said IFV. The M113 is lacking rather in the 'F' department.
>>29798732
M113, while a great APC, has been an extremely lack-luster IFV in all its attempted variants
>>29798748
So... you've never heard of the Ma Deuce.
>>29798765
50 cal's are significantly below the capability requirements for an IFV.
>>29798783
Would be cool to see it with a bigger caliber gun with telescopic ammo.
>>29798780
You are 100% incorrect. .50s light up a battle zone so fiercely that tanks take cover. No one stands against a .50 - that is insanity.
I would say the minimum requirements would be:
- 20-40mm Autocannon, 30 is becoming more widespread in the west while 20 was the last standard
- 7.62 coax(spell this out because they are using a 5.56 LMG on the new german puma)
- Antitank missile launcher, reloadable (preferably 2+ missiles ready to fire)
- 14.5 resistant to 20mm proof armor
the rest just depends on how you want to use it in the picture of your doctrine( fits into your cargo plane, should it cross rivers, ...) but for maximum effeciency, make the armor modular so that airmobile units can use them with less armor to fit them in the plane and ground units get the full kit. and the full kit should then include it to be 30mm proof and maybe slat. ADS if you can afford it.
>>29798792
>bigger caliber gun
It has 4 ATGM.
>>29798820
oh fuck, and decent optics for the gunner and commander, night vision mandatory for all three crew and thermal optional but recommended for the gunner and commander. (forgot about that part)
>>29798728
Not being as tall as a house helps (I'm looking at you, Bradley)
>>29798804
Said like a true I've-never-been-in-battle American
Actually having space inside to carry an effective amount of infantry and their gear- a platoon worth of IFV's should carry a platoon worth of infantry.
Looking at you Bradley with your fucking BFT screen bolted in.
>>29798783
>ERA on a vehicle made to support infantry
What could possibly go wrong?
>>29800189
What's the problem?
>>29800189
Better save a vehicle with crew than a man or two, right?
>>29798828
Well...those should be standard on any first world combat vehicle anyway. It won't help your guys very much if the driver has to put on NVGs and stick his head out to drive at night, now would it?
>>29798820
Troop capacity?
More troops = larger, heavier, less armor, but you need less of them to field a full squad.
Less troops = smaller, lighter, more armor, but you need more of them to field a full squad.
>>29800212
It ends badly for the guys the vehicle are supposed to be supporting.
>>29800215
ADS systems are a bit less hazardous for all involved.
>>29798783
>drives backwards with its shitty rear armour facing the enemy
>>29800212
>Hey, Comrade Joe, let's just hang out within the blast radius of this ERA that explodes upon contact with enemy fire
>I'm SURE this will end well!
You fucking idiot
>>29800241
Why do you think it's shitty?
>>29800272
If it prevents the vehicle from being destroyed, then that's what matters.
>>29800309
Yes, because an IFV works AMAZINGLY with no infantry to support it
>>29800286
name a single armored vehicle in history that didn't have poor rear protection.
>>29800323
>>29800323
Tiger? Maus?
whats the purpose of an IFV at all? Why not a tank?
Why building a large armored vehicle thats just as expensive as a tank, yet is fodder for ATGM's or tanks?
>>29800385
>Why not a tank?
Because unless you have a Merkava then you can't carry troops in a tank very well.
Also, 120mm guns are slight overkill on buildings.
>>29798804
>I have no idea what I'm talking about nor I've ever been deployed
>>29798820
you can do so much better than that for protection. Shit the M2A2 ODS is resistant to 30mm APFSDS and that model came out a quarter century ago.
>>29800317
Yeah because the infantry walks right next to the vehicle you fucking inbred hick.
>>29800385
Because how else are the Americans going to justify their stupidly large budget!
>No, we need something smaller than a tank, but larger than a jeep!
Only Americans could fall for that stupid shit.
>>29800396
You can't carry troops on a Merkava very well either anon.
>>29800419
How close are you wiling to stand next to a block of C4 that will go off at the drop of a hat?
>>29800396
Nothing stops you from adding a trailer to the tank, and carrying infantry in that
>>29800466
>nothing stops you from adding a trailer
Aside from the fairly substantial history of putting trailers on tanks being a completely and utterly shit idea.
Quick reminder that IFV's are a meme only americunts believe in
Everyone else has already realized APC's are acceptable
I wonder what motivates chucklefucks who don't know anything to act like they are smarter than the military leadership of every industrialised country put together.
>>29800592
This fag gets it.
>>29800564
This fag is just a fag.
And if you are close to anything beeing hit by a massive HEAT warhead then the ERA is probably the least of your problems.
>>29800429
You can carry, what, 5 in the ass end? Better than riding on top to help stop the enemy's rockets.
>>29800592
>Military Industrial Complex
>Bradley
>LCS
>F-35
>Unarmored Humvee's that stick the tax payer with the busted soldiers
Should I go on?
>>29800564
I suppose this is bait?
The soviets literally invented the IFV concept with the BMP. The Americans were a fairly late adopter.
>>29800612
You can carry two and its cramped as fuck in that case.
From what Merkgunner has said they use the capacity to maybe pick up a casualty or two if there's no nothing else better suited to doing it in the area [IIRC].
>>29800336
meme tanks don't count
>>29800636
Yeah, that is prettymuch what he wrote in the last /thg/. They also used the space to carry random shit in the tank.
>>29800421
Hahah yes only Americans would be stupid enough to buy IFVs such as the BMP and the CV-90 and the Warrior hahaha what silly burger vehicles those are it's not often that one sees a post as good as this
>>29800564
And it worked out so well for them that infantry prefers to ride on the roofs of BTRs rather than inside of them.
>>29800624
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand any of the points he's making
>Military Industrial Complex
that roosevelt sure was a good memer
>Bradley
I too have watched Pentagon Wars
>LCS
uughhh
>F-35
oh for fuck's sake
>Unarmored Humvee's that stick the tax payer with the busted soldiers
Yes, those cold war designers should have realized that their basic utility vehicle would be taking on a completely different mission to the one it was designed for.
>>29800624
How about you get an actual argument.
IFV's are a good idea and dozens of military forces use them for a reason. More fire support > less fire support.
>>29800435
>will go off at the drop of a hat?
no it will go off if hit so if the infantry are supporting the IFV and the IFV is supporting the infantry and all together they are supporting the tanks and the tanks are supporting them the chances of a hit should be much lower than the IFV operating alone which would make no sense as it is outside their doctrinal use unless it's to suppress an insurgency at which point you're not heavily worried about APDS or APFSDS but suppressing RPG gunners and SPG positions which should be possible to reduce the effective rounds fired at the vehicle to a majority of ineffective rounds. As was mentioned before and as you don't understnad the infantry that are working with the IFV do not stand 5m from it and can be anywhere where they can still receive and provide support with the IFV. In other words, go play some CoD.
Can someone fill me why you would want a wheeled IFV over a tracked one? Is it just a cost reason?
>>29800564
>>29800696
considering that the BTR stands for combat transporter it's not a very different role from the stryker of transporting infantry to the battlefield but not exactly being able to fight along with them or tanks.
>>29800435
>I have no idea how mechanized infantry works
>>29800745
Strategic mobility (faster on roads, muh Pristina Airport)
Better fuel economy on roads
If your IFV is under 20 tons, cost and mainteance.
>>29800317
The IFV doesn't work at all if it gets blown up. One or two grunts possibly dying from ERA doesn't matter if it saves the vehicle and its passengers from being killed. Also, I think you are greatly exaggerating the odds that ERA will kill somebody on the outside of the IFV. It sounds like something that could theoretically happen, but it isn't worth worrying about.
>>29799257
I can't imagine what you think of the Puma or T-15 by that standard.
>>29800944
How many tons does the T-15 weigh? Does anybody know?
>>29800944
None of those things are true when compared to rubber band tracks.
Chaining yourselves to roads is a strategic liability, not advantage.
>>29800632
Technically it was a German invention. You can see its origin in WW2 with their halftracks, but is continued after the war with the Schutzenpanzer 12-3.
>>29801092
>High explosives exploding under a pierced steel plate wont kill bystanders practically
So if i shoot my self in the torso with .308 it wont kill me practically ?
>>29801188
>Wheels have literally no advantage over tracks whatsoever
Anon, there's no way you're this retarded.
>>29798728
Good gun elevation
>>29801188
The logical solution is just to have two IFV's.
A lightweight (less than 20 metric tons) IFV that uses 8 wheel configuration.
And a heavy IFV (less than 45 metric tons) IFV that uses tracks.
There is no reason to overspecialize in one type of vehicle.
>>29800624
>Bradley
>>29800521
Now thats 100% bullshit
>>29801395
The logical solution is to not have any IFV's are all because they serve no practice purpose
Should have wheeled & tracked light APC's, which do not carry any direct fire weaponry, for carrying troops.
Then we need to work on developing cheap, low maintainance, fuel efficient medium tanks to do everything the IFV used to do & more
>>29800129
>>29800401
>the joke
>your heads
>>29800435
If you are close enough to be killed by ERA, then you more than likely are also close enough to be killed when the IFV goes boom without it.
>>29801188
Band tracks are not something you can field repair.
>>29801466
Is our listerine drinking friend back?
>>29801623
You can get segmented band tracks and carry replacement sections
>>29801636
Which have a terrible life span.
>>29801494
>g-g-guys I was just pretending to be retarded!
>>29801428
In my experience, normally when the army adds trailers to vehicles it's because they're using the vehicle in a role/way it was not supposed to fulfill or because it was poorly designed for its role in the first place. I'm looking at you LSVW.
>>29801466
Said like a true neverserved armchair general.
>>29801466
So you want two vehicles to do the job of one for no reason?
And they cannot do everything the IFV does without a transport compartment.
>>29801466
I could explain why that doesn't make sense but something tells me it wouldn't be worth it.
>>29798728
What makes a good IFV?
>carries at least 6 dismounts in safety
>armed with something bigger than a .50 MG
>made by a Western nation so it doesn't fall apart or irradiate everything or rust at a moist glance or only fit particularly short midgets wearing nothing but pajamas
>tracked
>top speed of 80+km/h
>invulnerable at all angles to HMG fire (including the 14.3mm Russian one)
>smoke launchers so there's a chance of not getting BTFO by an ATGM
>>29798728
Rear final drives for starters
>>29801723
Do I need to repeat the fact that they could pull a trailer?
In a real war the IFV is useless, it's not armored enough to take tank fire and its too heavy/big to function as a proper APC, nor can it carry sufficient men.
The problem the US has is an institutional or doctrinal refusal to procure medium weight tanks, so then people get into a mindset that they "need" IFV's, since they won't have an abrams supporting them.
It just doesn't have to be that way.
>>29799257
..the Bradley's only around 8ft tall. It's actually significantly shorter than most non-Soviet IFV's
>>29801786
>carries at least 6
Six?
So hardly half of a NATO-defined squad?
Why the fuck would you want such a shitty IFV?
>>29801825
>EVERYTHING IS FINE
>>29801786
>6 dismounts
8 dismounts at least
>>29801843
>Nato-defined squad of 8
>nearly everybody including the Russains and Chinese use 8 man squads
>"barely half"
Dunno if you're retarded or bad at math.
K.
>>29801868
>one was made in 1956
>one was made in 1989
>one holds the driver and gunner, everyone else has to ride on top
>one holds driver, commander, gunner, and 6 dismounts in comfort
>one is vulnerable to .30cal MG fire at 300m
>the other is proofed against 23mm fire point blank
Sure
>>29801871
That's larger than most IFVs. Thats the tradeoff for armament at that size and weight.
>>29800736
You don't like using punctuation, do you?
>>29801821
If you think trailers are practical you are an idiot.
And every APC being an IFV is far more firepower than a lesser number of medium tanks. The MBT evolved out of the medium tank and made it obsolete.
>>29801942
BMD-2 entered production in 1985
Carries 5 dismounts
>>29802114
>carries 5 dismounts
Not internally, unless they're all naked and under 5' tall.
>>29802194
>Not internally, unless they're all naked and under 5' tall.
According to fucking who?
'Cause here's my source that states the BMP-2 carriers 7 dismount soldiers in full battle rattle
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmp2.htm
>>29802100
Explain to me why trailers wouldn't work
>And every APC being an IFV is far more firepower than a lesser number of medium tanks.
Which is only relevant if you are facing a force that is completely unable to deal with ANY armor.
Otherwise those IFV's and APC's are just expensive fodder
>>29802262
My source is the tank graveyards in Iraq that we took cutting torches to in 2004 to up-armor our humvees.
I've been in a BMP2. There is NO WAY IN EVERLOVING FUCK a normal Western soldier would fit in one in full battle rattle, much less 7 of them. The dismount compartment is only 3 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. And only about 3.5 feet tall.
>>29802294
Amazing source, bro
>>29802307
Nothing like a primary source, eh?
Would you like me to also post the literally dozense of easily found, open source schematics of the BMP2 that corroborate it?
>>29802351
Please
>>29802368
Try fitting a 5'10" soldier in an IOTV and standard load bearing kit in here.
>>29802398
Looks large enough for me.
Certainly a comfy fit, but a fit none the less.
>>29802415
For JUST you. In civilian clothes.
Now imagine wearing 75-110lbs of gear, carrying a weapon, in there with 6 other guys, trying to get out without getting shot.
>>29802453
No idea what are you talking about, looks like there's enough space for almost anyone.
>>29802453
To give you an idea:
>from ground to top of rear compartment is less than 5'
The guy sitting on the barrel is taller than the IFV and he's under 5'6".
>>29802488
Manlet even by slav standards detected.
>>29802488
Let's put it this way...
>even the North Koreans thought it was too cramped
>>29802294
>NO WAY IN EVERLOVING FUCK a normal Western soldier would fit in one in full battle rattle
Exactly, it was designed for eastern forces, their equipment and their standard of comfort
>none
>>29802731
The Soviet man was not expected to wear a IOTV or any american styled equipment but his rifle, helmet, belt and amo bag and so on. A very spartan style of equipment versus his nato counterpart.
Later on in the late 80's he was starting to wear more equipment (body armor 6b2 and so on) but it was still acceptable and he was still on average smaller and shorter then his american counterpart.
>>29798728
>that panzer 4 strap on armour
americans confirmed fascists
>>29802453
>75-110lbs of gear
and this is where you fail at understanding why mechanizing troops is helpful beyond the firepower provided by those vehicles, protip mobility is for the troops...AND non immediately essential combat equipment they carry.
>>29802815
Protip: 75lbs is simply armor, ammo, comms, and water for a rifleman. That doesn't include a ruck or assault pack. 110lbs would be a mortarman or AG for an m240 since they carry a lot more ammo in a heavier caliber. Again, doesn't include a ruck or assault pack.
>size large IOTV with no pouches and only soft armor and front/rear plates weighs 36lbs. Fully equipped (side plates, DAPs, collar and throat guard it's around 41lbs. Throw the 2.5lb helmet on there and you're looking at 43-44lbs JUST IN ARMOR. 210 rounds (bare minimum *basic load*) of 5.56 in mags weighs an additional 7.5lbs, and 3L of water (standard issue Camelbak) weighs around 7lbs. So, NOT INCLUDING STUFF LIKE FIRST AID OR COMMS we're already up to 58lbs. Considering an MBITR weighs around 10lbs by itself before you add the antenna, spare battery, handset, or headset, we're pushing 75lbs.
>>29801258
I'll grant you the Schutzenpanzer, but the halftracks were really APCs, not IFVs.
>>29802731
And yet here you are advocating them as not only a viable but a "good" IFV without qualifiers like "only for slavic forces predating the common issuance of body armor or radios".
Seems like you're a multicolored retard to me.
>>29802883
thanks for once again failing to understand that the US doesn't use BMP's
if you want to greentext weights go find the weight of the equipment used by Soviets, Russians, and other mass BMP1-2 operators. I agree but your analysis is correct for a different scenario...
>>29802902
You are confusing me with other people
Im just telling you how it is my retarded friend.
>>29802910
Thanks for once again failing to understand that the BMP design (along with all other slavic designs manufactured prior to about 2010) are horribly horribly obsolete and have zero place in this thread, which is about GOOD DESIGNS.
Or that the slavaboos ITT can't into qualifiers and as such are advocating them as good designs in [current year] for modern Western forces.
>>29802925
>are advocating them as good designs in [current year] for modern Western forces.
Have you considered maybe you're the one that can't into qualifiers? Asking "is X a good IFV" does not make any kind of statements about context such as who is using it.
>>29802262
>>29802294
>>29802351
>>29802398
>>29802453
>>29802491
>>29802731
>>29802775
> a couple of assholes yell at each other with autistic fury about a IFV that wasn't in this picture at all >>29801868
Thats a BMD-2. Though its similarly armed to its BMP-2 counterpart (30mm canon and ATGM) literally everything else from armor, to fuel capacity, to, yes, carry capacity for dismounts is different (compromised) because its specially designed to be able to be para-dropped
maybe if you armchair generals could wipe the cheeto dust from your monitor you would notice that the names BMP and BMD are different and you might be compelled to fucking google them before getting in shit flinging sessions with other neckbeards on a Mongolian basket weaving forum
>>29801868
>BMD
>infantry have to climb out the roof and over the engine deck to exit the vehicle
>4 passengers
>vulnerable to HMG fire
I like how the BMD-2 is farther back, exploiting perspective to make it look smaller.
>>29801361
That is not what anon said. Why must you lie?
>>29803150
>vulnerable to HMG fire
The front is thick enough to give it a decent chance to stop HMG and some 20mm autocannon fire.
At point blank range the chance of survival decrease.
>>29802294
>The dismount compartment is only 3 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. And only about 3.5 feet tall.
holy shit that sounds horrifying to be in
>>29803194
It might be able to stop ball ammo depending on the distance, but not AP or SLAP.
>>29801428
Tank trailers are useful. It's like an auxiliary gas tank you can detach from the drivers seat.
>>29801659
It's a supply item. Like boots and peanut butter.
>>29803265
Yes there is the factor of distance meaning it can stop AP and SLAP if it is far enough.
Depending on the angle of impact, the BMD has a chance to stop AP and SLAP at ranges it would normally get penetrated.
The upper glacis having the best chance to deflect incoming rounds due to its design.
Wouldn't it be better to field light APC that can resist 155/HMG and carry8-12
AND
a light tank that has good range/speed/whatever makes it good as a light tank.
This would be less suited to insurgency of course.
>>29803366
Well if you have a doctrine which allows that then of course.
Problem is that very few nations have APC as frontline support vehicles or have room for the light tank.
Both of their roles have been overtaken by the IFV.
>>29803333
George Michael is an expert in BMD blindage since when ?
>>29803427
Always.
But the BMD 1/2 while having acceptable protection against possible threats it would face in the cold war (fragments, automatic rifle fire and 12.7mm guns) is no longer acceptable for airborne troops in the modern age where the threat level have gone up.
The newer versions such as the BMD-3 and 4 are better vehicles in the modern age.
There are also some western designs who might fill the role that the BMD-2 have much better.
>>29803366
2 IFV's will give you the same infantry capacity, protect the infantry better, and give you more firepower than a lightly armored APC and an light tank.
>>29803389
US could put light tanks in any IBCT or SBCT.
>>29803758
The US Army actually wants a 'light tank' for its IBCT's, which do not use APC's or IFV's.
A 'light tank' for SBCT's already exists, and that is not taking into consideration the vehicles that will be fitted with 30mm cannons or Javelins.
The autism.
This thread is arguing that, instead of transporting infantry to shore on LCACs, we should modify Iowa Class Battleships to be landing craft.
You're asking for a type of vehicle which necessarily must be the conclusion of a great many compromises to be able to do all things as well as the uncompromised equipment does each individual task.
It's a fool's errand. Better to let MBTs and light tanks do their jobs and support them with infantry from APCs and helicopter infantry.
>>29800309
>Saving a vehicle at the cost of all the infantrymen around it
>>29803822
Good luck doing much offroad with those strykers
Or taking fire from enemy armored vehicles
We'll have to see what sort of disaster the MPF results in.
>>29803743
A lightly armored APC could carry much more people, small sizes are chosen for doctrinal reasons & to limit losses when one is killed.
A tank of equivalent weight to the IFV would have far more firepower & more armor.
>>29801428
Nice claim, glad you decided to substantiate it.
Do give examples of the numerous successful tank-towed trailers that must exist if I'm so wrong?
The almost complete absense of trailers on MBT's since World War Two in an actual combat theatre must not be a sign of their utter stupidity then?
Trailers ruin a tanks mobility, to the point where the benefits aren't worth it.
>>29801821
Trailers are retarded and wars aren't constant tank engagements.
You're fucking retarded and the vast majority of competent military strategists, tankers, engineers etc etc disagree with you completely.
Just stop, you're a fucking cretin, kill yourself, do it, remove your seed from the gene pool you sack of shit.
>>29803999
>This thread is arguing that, instead of transporting infantry to shore on LCACs, we should modify Iowa Class Battleships to be landing craft.
Wow, what a fucking horrible analogy. A better comparison would be using an AMTRAC of some sort.
And IFVs fill an intermediary role that neither MBTs nor APCs can fulfill easily.
>>29802292
They act as a big fucking anchor in difficult terrain for starters.
Also good look reversing in a hurry if shit gets too hot.
There's a reason they've never been deployed as standard equipment, only finding niches in extremely specialised roles [the only half successful application i can think of is in World War Two era flamethrower tanks, that's about it and even then it was an expediant because they couldn't fit enough fuel in the hull].
>>29803999
LCACs are fucking stupid useless and non survivable
>>29804328
Infantry inside an IFV don't help during battle, even a little. So you let them out to fight alongside the vehicle. So now you have infantry fighting alongside a mechanized vehicle which could be a more capable vehicle, except it was saddled with the unnecessary task of transporting troops to battle.
>>29803999
>we should modify Iowa Class Battleships to be landing craft.
Tell it wouldn't be awesome. COME ON FAGGET TELL ME !!!
>>29804360
You do realize that once they are IN the battle they get outside of the IFV right ?
>>29804107
2 IFV's will carry more soldiers and have more firepower than 1 APC and 1 light tank.
>>29804295
Israelis use them
>Trailers ruin a tanks mobility
The tank can dump the trailer at any point if its needed. It'll do nothing to impact the tanks ability to drive around outside of combat.
>>29804314
>wars aren't constant tank engagements.
Which is why those tanks should use their oversized engines to tow their own logistics needs.
>Also good look reversing in a hurry if shit gets too hot.
As if no other vehicle with a trailer can reverse?
>There's a reason they've never been deployed as standard equipment
Because theres no thought to sanity or cost effectiveness in modern armies, and problems are systematically ignored.
>>29804107
>Good luck doing much offroad with those strykers
They have done fine so far.
>Or taking fire from enemy armored vehicles
A light tank of the same weight class will not survive enemy fire either.
>>29804534
>Israelis use them
The IDF operates in a very small area.
>>29800323
Your mum?
>>29804556
>They have done fine so far.
They've done terrible, which is why the afghan war was lost.
>A light tank of the same weight class will not survive enemy fire either.
It will have better protection & superior firepower.
If you accept an unmanned turret, you could get MBT levels of protection on the front.
>>29804418
Yes. This is when you have sub par vehicles. Instead, replace them with MBTs. Have APCs drive up behind and drop the infantry.
>>29804570
IDF is the only "western" army with any experience at tank on tank in a remotely equal battlefield.
The US can do shit like letting the republican guard escape because their tanks run out of fuel and it doesn't matter to them, or having thousands of people die running unnecessary convoys in iraq/afghanistan since they have lots of excess people.
>>29804756
Less efficient and less firepower with less versatility.
>>29804756
You still have APCs carrrying the troops. Why not give them a bigger gun?
This whole thread is a meme
>strykers lost us the Middle East
>Israelis using Western tech are the only group in the world that have ever faced a credible armored threat from an enemy because scenarios like the US M60's against the Iraqi T-72's in Desert Storm 1 don't count
>bring back light tanks
>8x8's are completely incapable of off-road
>who needs apc's/ifv's when we can put people in trailers and have them towed by tanks
>instead of one versatile platform (IFV) let's have 2+ specialized platforms, one of which becomes useless after dropping off troops rather than working synergistically with people on the ground and has less armor making it more likely that the high concentration of people it is carrying won't even make it to its destination
>>29805196
They should be carrying indirect missiles, mortars, and UAV's, not direct fire weaponry
>>29805289
>who needs apc's/ifv's when we can put people in trailers and have them towed by tanks
Don't act like it couldn't be done, don't act like it wouldn't work extremely well.
Instead we have troops sleeping out in the open, or in tents because the US won't attach a trailer to their vehicles??
Hardly makes any sense
Lets not talk about hurting mobility when 90% of the time they are driving down roads.
>>29805377
Wait a second... Are you talking about
((((Battle Boxes))))
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>29805196
I'm not opposed to arming them more heavily. I'm opposed to making those same vehicles front line combatants, because then they require substantially more armor than they have, which makes them heavier, bigger, and slower, to carry the same number of troops. Which means they're more vulnerable because of their lack of maneuverability, which means more armor, etc., etc.
There's a reason nobody realistically tries to make strategic bombers anymore which are bristling with guns like the bombers of WWII.
>>29805561
>Vehicle's entire job is to carry troops to the front line
>But it shouldn't be able to fight at the front line
>>29805318
Why? None of those can fit in an APC at the same time as the troops. Besides, those are rear line weapons.
>>29798820
You always want to armor a vehicle to be able to withstand its own main gun.
>>29805595
It's called scope creep. Look it up.
>>29805610
There is no creep involved with saying that a vehicle that has to go to the front to do its job should have at least some kind weapon that it can use there, as well as an appropriate level of armor.
>>29805561
You're opposed to giving armor to vehicles that WILL be used as front line combatants. That's just the nature of things. So you give them a bit of armor, and to counteract that you give them a bigger engine, which means you need to make the chassis a bit better. But in no way are they less vulnerable due to "a lack of mobility". The M113 is the perfect example of what you want, and yet it has less mobility than a Bradley except in what are effectively swamps.
So you're taking away a huge amount of firepower of the unit for what? Absolutely nothing. There is no major loss of maneuverability, and most certainly the lesser maneuverability does not result in increased vulnerability. I'm at a loss for why you would think that.
>There's a reason nobody realistically tries to make strategic bombers anymore which are bristling with guns like the bombers of WWII.
That's a false equivalence and you know it.
>>29805610
Let me ask you a question. If the troops have something with a big gun on it that has the capability to withstand small arms fire, do you think they WOULDN'T use it to protect themselves to a greater degree than otherwise?
>>29805641
How about we build a vehicle with twelve feet thick steel armor on all sides with an indoor area of 60,000 square feet, capable of carrying 10,000 troops and withstanding nuclear blasts? We could arm it with tactical nuclear weapons. Wouldn't that be awesome?
And no, it isn't a false equivalence. It's compromising the capability of equipment to make it have to do two things half as well.
>>29805703
>>29805664
I said I'm not opposed to a mildly armored vehicle designed to transport troops (APC) being up-gunned. But stacking on seven tons of heavy plate armor compromises the original task of the equipment.
>>29805595
That's like saying we should create 120mm armed M113s. It's obviously absurd. IFVs should not be built like tanks, because what you end up with is a tank with troop transport capabilities, and you have to make sacrifices somewhere. Instead, the IFV should be reliably protected against infantry weapons, and be armed sufficiently to provide fire support to disembarked troops.
>>29805703
You're being retarded. In no way does it compromise the capability of the vehicles. Quite the opposite, it adds a massive amount of capability to the unit.
>>29805719
That's a blatant lie. How does it compromise things? You need a bigger engine and maybe a bit bigger of a vehicle. So what? It doesn't change the fact that it still carries infantry. And if you want to take an APC into battle, the lack of armor will get it DESTROYED, which rather hampers its ability to carry infantry, don't you think?
>>29805719
That depends entirely on the intentions of the vehicle's designer. If the idea is to have a faster vehicle that can travel quickly on roads, then the extra weight is bad. If the idea is to have a heavier vehicle that can operate alongside tanks, then the extra weight is good.
>>29805770
>IFVs should not be built like tanks,
They aren't.
>Instead, the IFV should be reliably protected against infantry weapons, and be armed sufficiently to provide fire support to disembarked troops.
They are. The ideas you are describing have already been implemented worldwide. Congratulations.
>>29805770
That's an argument to absurdity. You're taking things far beyond their extreme to try and illustrate your point, completely failing to realize the truth. IFVs are NOT built like tanks. They can not take cannon fire from the front. However, they should be sufficiently armored to protect them against autocannon fire, which is rather prevalent. In fact, every single infantry squad in a top of the line Russian unit has an autocannon in it, or rather the squad is riding in or on a vehicle which has an autocannon. Thus, IFVs need to be sufficiently armored to protect them against that threat, allowing them to carry their troops safely to their destination and then support them when there.
>>29805600
They go on top, just like the 30mm or javelins or whatever else you are putting on the APC
>those are rear line weapons
This doctrine is why the US is so reliant on air support
>>29802775
Get real the Soviet union was the first mass adopter of rifle resistant modern armor.
Go watch actual footage of soviet infantry patrols in Afghanistan
>>29805876
>Get real the Soviet union was the first mass adopter of rifle resistant modern armor.
>what is vietnam helicopter pilot ceramic armor
>>29805377
TRAILERS. ARE. FUCKING. STUPID.
Get that into your thick mongoloid skull, along with the realisation that your dad should have blown his wad in your mum's face instead of spawning the monumental waste of blood and organs that you have grown up to be.
>>29805641
>that WILL be used as front line combatants
Thats not the nature of things
Thats the LACK of tanks demonstrating itself
Solution: Bring more tanks, less APC's or IFV's
The APC's should be more like the BV206, except bigger, carrying maybe 20-30 troops.
Should also be able to operate autonomously so fulltime drivers/crew for them is unnecessary.
>>29805772
>it adds a massive amount of capability to the unit.
At the expense of other capabilities.
>>29805816
And that's perfectly logical. But protection isn't a matter of yes or no. Sometimes it makes sense to design a vehicle that can resist autocannon fire at range X, but not at all ranges, because 100% protection would require making too many sacrifices in other areas to be worthwhile.
>>29805900
Don't put too much effort into trying to correct the delusions of a guy who drinks Listerine, okay?
>>29805816
You say it's an argument to absurdity, yet the Russian BMP-3 has a 100mm gun.
>>29805835
>They go on top, just like the 30mm or javelins or whatever else you are putting on the APC
Life doesn't work like that. These things require dedicated vehicles, because the systems around them are so large. For example, a mortar carrier has a mortar in the troop compartment, with doors on the top of the vehicle that open up. This way, the mortar crew can set up and displace at a moment's notice, all while having ready access to a large supply of ammunition and under a degree of protection from shrapnel.
An ATGM vehicle is the same way, a dedicated vehicle. Just look at the M901 ITV. These things are neat in that you can go hull down in them and still fire, while providing an absolutely minimal target for your enemies.
UAVs, at the moment, are much the same. They require soldiers and equipment to man them, and are large enough that they need a dedicated vehicle just to carry them. This is especially true of the ones which have a special launcher.
All of these have one thing in common- they aren't front line troops either. At the lowest they're company level assets. Arguably most of them should be BATTALION level assets.
>>29805902
That's blatant baiting and you know it.
>>29805918
>yet the Russian BMP-3 has a 100mm gun
Noice
>>29803150
The BMD is really just a fire support platform, the infantry carrying capacity is laughable, but for airborne troops any trans is better than no trans.
It's really only suited for carrying ATGM and other weapons teams or scout teams anyway.
It's primary purpose was to give the VDV some heavier support weaponry. They had a variant with no turret, a PKM pintle, an enlarged and lengthened crew compartment that serves in the grunt carrier/prime mover role.
It's a different airborne doctrine - Russia/Soviets wanted a partially armored mobile air droppable force - sacrifices need to be made
>>29805900
WHY are trailers so stupid though?
>>29805910
>At the expense of other capabilities.
Like what? You've yet to delineate exactly what those are.
> Sometimes it makes sense to design a vehicle that can resist autocannon fire at range X, but not at all ranges, because 100% protection would require making too many sacrifices in other areas to be worthwhile.
That's part of the design process. So you design it to withstand normal combat ranges. In the case of the BMP-3, they wanted it to withstand fire from a 30mm 2A42 at 300 meters.
And this doesn't change anything. At all. Why did you even go off on this tangent?
>>29805918
The BMP-3 is a bit of an oddity. The 100 mm gun is there partially to be used to shoot ATGMs. It is in no way a high velocity cannon. I'd argue that the 100 mm gun is the secondary armament, while the 30 mm autocannon is the primary. So yes, it most certainly is an argument unto absurdity.
>>29805945
Not really.
The M113 was hamstrung by poor armor and the fact that it wasn't fast enough to keep up with the Abrams.
So they created the M2 Bradley. A vehicle which weighs more than 2.5 times as much, carries half as many people, and goes ever-so-slightly faster.
If they'd given the M113 the same 600 horsepower engine the M2 had, that would've fixed the speed issue. The addition of some modest armor and an autocannon could have been made without increasing the weight to 30 tons, and kept the transport capacity high.
>>29805973
Because it's 2016 anon.
Also the military has no financial discipline whatsoever and have never heard of cost effectiveness. If there isn't a million dollar development program involved somehow they're not interested.
>>29806007
>Like what? You've yet to delineate exactly what those are.
More weapons/armor means a more expensive vehicle, reduced transport capacity, slower speed, higher maintenance costs, fuel consumption, etc.
>>29805973
You sacrifice cross country performance, you slow the tanks down potentially, you make the tanks a bigger target, I also don't need to tell you the danger it would pose to an infantry squad being towed by an Abrahams going 50+mph if that M1 had to suddenly make an emergency maneuver, and the threat of a trailer going rotational.
Honestly I'd rather tank desant than be riding any kind of trailer, the BV is a special case because it is an articulated vehicle from the get go.
And the point is kinda moot because now we have 10 man + MRAP's and armored FMTV's with armored passenger compartments
>>29806020
It's a 100mm low velocity cannon. Almost a freaking demolition gun, those HE rounds are loaded to the brim.
The 30mm was always the primary, the 100mm just gives them options - ATGM, HE-FRAG, HE, HEAT, Canister, etc
>>29805918
A low pressure, HE farting gun.
>>29806007
>withstand 30mm fire from multiple angles
That's actually really good. The BMP isn't even a heavy IFV but bone stock it has good protection and we all know ones going into combat will have bricks all over.
14.5 will penetrate a brad's side armor (plain jane brad w/o addon's or ERA)
>>29804747
>Strykers are why Afghanistan was lost
>a 20 ton vehicle can have MBT level protection
wew lad
e
w
l
a
d
>>29798728
I got an idea guys.
For an APC you make it able to
>Carry 8 troops
>Be 8x8
>Go reasonably quick
>Not get stuck off road
>Have an Airborne version that is amphibious as well. With less armor
>All of the defenses are to keep in mind that maneuverability and tactics will be used to survive and not to slug it out with other armor.
>--Have enough armor to stop 25mm and lower while the Airborne/amphib version will have 20mm proof armor.
>--Give it some smoke and small amounts of APS, just enough to survive and get away.
>Give it 2 styles of turret.
>--One with a 20mm and a .30 cal coax with 2 missiles for vehicle defense. This will be the standard and more common setup. Ammo will be sparse and used mostly to over power entrenched infantry and trucks/cars. Ammo will be 200-300 in the turret and 200 in the hull. 300 for the coax, and 2 missiles.
>--One with a 50-70mm a low pressure gun which can engage harder targets at range and possibly shoot anti-tank missiles from the main gun. If the missiles become too much to have ammo wise then have them setup the same way as the standard turret. This will be used as mobile artillery/fire support and small vehicle destruction. Ammo will be 40-60 in the turret, and 20-40 in the hull. 400-500 for the coax. 2 missiles.
The doctrine for these is for them to support infantry against things that infantry would typically fight. Not go toe to toe with armor. The low pressure gun variant will be there to protect against armored vehicles.
>>29798728
The US Army should look into buying the Puma. Just saying. It's like a Bradley, but better.
>>29806021
Essentially what you want is a YPR-765. It's a Dutch M113 that was upgunned, uparmored, and upengined. But here's the problem with it- It has insufficient armament, armor, and carrying capacity. While it can allegedly seat 7, normally only 5 ride in the back. And yes, it does have a 25mm autocannon, but it doesn't carry very many rounds. Same with its coax. It lacks an ATGM altogether. The armor was insufficient to protect against 30mm autocannons. So while it did have what you want, it was insufficient.
>>29806141
No, just from the frontal arc. The sides are less well armored.
>>29806191
Insufficient for what? If it worked, then it worked.
>>29806141
>plain jane brad
IIRC pre-A2 Bradley's have not existed since the 90's.
>>29806039
>more expensive vehicle
Not a big issue. If it's more effective in battle and more survivable, it's generally worth the cost, because they aren't insanely expensive. If it can kill even a single enemy vehicle it goes a long way towards being more cost effective.
>reduced transport capacity, slower speed
For a given size and engine. This isn't true if you make the vehicle even slightly bigger and put a more powerful engine in it. You know, what they do in the real world.
>maintenance costs, fuel costs
You know what costs more? A dead infantryman or APC. By having a vehicle which is better protected and armed, you are less likely to take losses in battle, which most certainly are more expensive to the commander than a bit of monetary cost up front.
>>29805770
>>29805808
>IFVs should not be built like tanks
What makes me wonder is if there has been serious instance where there was a Western attempt to develop an IFV that utilized an MBT chassis like how the BTR-T and BMPT do. I can only think of the Namer, but even then, it's more akin to a super heavy APC as I've only seen an M2 atop of it.
>>29806084
It's a far cry from a demolition gun, but the HE-Frag rounds are rather powerful. And I've never heard of a HEAT or canister round for the gun. HEAT you think would be provided for via the ATGMs, and canister is just a bad idea.
>>29806212
>If it worked, then it worked
Setting aside it was inferior to a Bradley in nearly every regard.
>>29806212
Insufficient for combat against a peer or near peer foe. A BMP would have eaten them for breakfast.
>>29804773
>IDF is the only "western" army with any experience at tank on tank in a remotely equal battlefield.
40 years ago with weapons provided by other countries.
>>29806278
I'm sure.
>>29806264
Not that I can think of.
>>29806264
I know it has been looked at, but to my knowledge no one has seriously pursued it.
>>29805973
Half the FLIPL investigations I've had to do involve a trailer getting fucked up for a good reason; its not easy to drive a vehicle with a trailer slapped on it. You have to be more cautious in how you drive so you don't ending up swinging the big dopey wagon you're pulling and end up breaking shit. That's fine in a garrison environment or during a convoy op. If you're in a combat operation you're fucked. You're gonna forced to lose mobility and speed because you're busy babying the trailer that's hauling all your shit. If you have to move fast or make sudden turns, as what can happen when you're in the middle of a battlefield, you risk wrecking your trailer badly. At best the trailer will snap off and tumble away causing you to lose all of your equipment. At worst the trailer topples over, you lose all your equipment, and now you're dragging around hunk of meddle that's making you an even slower target. That's of course assuming the trailer doesn't get stuck in shit and takes you down with it.
>>29798728
>>29806181
Now for the IFV
>Carry 4-6 troops, just enough so these things can support MBTs.
>Be tracked
>Go as fast as MBTs.
>Rated for 50mm and lower with decent amount of APS and smoke.
>CV-90 style turret with a versatile gun, re-loadable missile launcher, and good optics for recon. Of course a .30 cal coax too.
The doctrine for these is to travel and fight alongside MBTs and help provide mobile infantry support for these vehicles.
>>29806300
>I'm sure.
The Bradley carried 3x more 25mm rounds, 2x as many 25mm rounds ready, 30% more coax ammunition, 4x coax ready rounds, an ATGM launcher plus several missiles, more men normally carried (6 compared to 5), same theoretical passenger load (7), more armor, and roughly the same speed and range.
>>29806388
Did you think I was sarcastic? No. I was agreeing with you.
>>29806366
>Fight alongside MBT's
>Can't take fire from other MBT's or ATGM's
whats the point anon
>>29806318
Sounds like whatever trailers you are using have high centers of gravity, poor design, are overweight, and not expendable.
The trailers should also be detachable from inside the tow vehicle.
>>29806407
Sorry, I generally assume sarcasm when it looks like it could be. This IS 4chan after all.
>>29805377
>don't act like it wouldn't work extremely well
>be tank with infantry trailer
>detach trailer because combat starts
>have to retreat, can't hitch trailer forcing you to ditch the infantry
>"Sorry guys you have to hike it out under fire because an autist on the internet had a bright idea."
>>29806430
Yes you are infantry, you need to dismount
>>29806308
There was an old ARMOR article that mentioned using an Abrams hull for an APC.
>>29806455
I like how you completely ignored the second half of that post.
>>29806181
I'm not a fan. If you're going to armor against something, the golden standard is against the 30mm 2A42. It's simply too prevalent to not protect against.
20mm effectively doesn't exist today. If you want to make it truly effective at infantry support, give it a 30mm, so it could make use of airbursting ammunition. Further, while 2 ATGMs might be a decent ready amount, carry a reload for them.
As for the 50-70mm low pressure gun, that's absolutely retarded. Low pressure means low range. Further, the HE filler will not be enough to take on hardened targets. Further still, those rounds are much too small to have GLATGMs. 100 mm is about the lowest you can go and still be reasonable. I'd actually suggest a 105 mm gun, which vehicles of similar size have proven they can mount. It'll kill anything short of an MBT easily.
>>29806181
>Give it 2 styles of turret
At this point your APC became an IFV.
>>29806457
At least there was some conceptual art of an Abrams-based SPAAG floating around.
Though, I'd imagine an Abrams-based APC looking like a very low-profile M88A1 and no winch of course.
>>29806418
>whats the point anon
No IFV can take fire from MBTs. Since it's working alongside your MBTs, hopefully they will be the ones to engage and be engaged by the enemy's MBTs. You can present a threat to it, but unless you want to have a stupidly heavy design, you can't armor it against cannon fire.
>>29806366
Four guys is too few. 6 guys is decent. 50mm is beyond what most people expect there to be. Make it 30 base, with applique to up it beyond if need be.
>>29806474
It's just you talking out your ass
>We can't do <X> because someone will fuck it up one day!
>>29806491
BTRs have turrets and they're not IFVs. Strykers will soon have turrets and they're not IFVs.
>>29806418
>whats the point anon
To protect tanks from infantry you dolt. Everything in the histrroy of everything has weaknesses, you compliment your vehicles with vehicles that don't have those weaknesses.
>>29806570
A tank is more suited to killing infantry than an IFV...
>>29806491
They are still geared towards troop transport. With a turret that now has purpose.
>>29806249
>Not a big issue. If it's more effective in battle and more survivable, it's generally worth the cost, because they aren't insanely expensive. If it can kill even a single enemy vehicle it goes a long way towards being more cost effective.
It's about the balance between cost and combat value. Ideally, you want to take losses you can afford while making the enemy take losses they can't afford.
>For a given size and engine. This isn't true if you make the vehicle even slightly bigger and put a more powerful engine in it. You know, what they do in the real world.
And bigger vehicle = more weight for a given thickness of armor, not to mention an easier target, higher costs, and possibly inability to cross bridges, etc.
>>29800189
>being so close to an IFV that ERA going off would kill you
Do you even
>>29806485
I guess it could be up armored in the front, but the sides will use add-ons then.
>20mm effectively doesn't exist today. If you want to make it truly effective at infantry support, give it a 30mm, so it could make use of airbursting ammunition. Further, while 2 ATGMs might be a decent ready amount, carry a reload for them.
20mm is fine, airbursting isn't needed when you have infantry that can maneuver and engage. The auto cannon is there to eliminate cover and vehicles If anything I would just give it more ammo instead of a bigger gun. Also if the thing has to reload to engage tanks, then it should just be running away.
>As for the 50-70mm low pressure gun, that's absolutely retarded. Low pressure means low range. Further, the HE filler will not be enough to take on hardened targets. Further still, those rounds are much too small to have GLATGMs. 100 mm is about the lowest you can go and still be reasonable. I'd actually suggest a 105 mm gun, which vehicles of similar size have proven they can mount. It'll kill anything short of an MBT easily.
This variant isn't for destroying MBTs, just armored cars and other IFV/APCs. I would go high pressure before I would go bigger this way it could carry different types of ammo. Sabot, Thermo, and heat.
Be patient as I don't know much about IFV stuff since these threads are usually filled with shitposting. I am just trying to stimulate conversation about armament and armor.
>>29806696
>airbursting isn't needed
Airbursting is a revolutionary firepower enhancer, negating the cover of "cover"
>>29798728
Dakkka
>>29806526
I like the Bofors 40mm actually. I wouldn't want to go smaller than that.
6 guys sounds about right, either way these guys are infantry support not full on infantry.
>>29806580
No it isn't. Its cannon is over kill, and sucks against infantry. This isn't WW2. It also can't aim as high as an iFV can so they suck in urban terrain.
>>29806498
Think of an Achzarit or BMO-T.
>>29806619
>It's about the balance between cost and combat value. Ideally, you want to take losses you can afford while making the enemy take losses they can't afford.
And IFVs are the ideal way to do that. Contrary to your imaginary la-la land, IFVs are EXTREMELY cost effective. And please pay attention to the fact that cost effectiveness is not just in dollars, but also in equipment. If you equip a unit with vehicles that can't provide sufficient protection both in level of armor and in armament, that unit has lost a far greater portion of its combat power than the dollar bill says.
>And bigger vehicle = more weight for a given thickness of armor, not to mention an easier target, higher costs, and possibly inability to cross bridges, etc.
And these things are minimal, shit-for-brains. Is a Bradley overly constrained by its inability to cross bridges? You're vastly overestimating the costs, and vastly underestimating the utility of an IFV in combat. Besides, for the most part it would extend lengthwise slightly, which really isn't that weighty in armor. Despite your protestations, people whose entire job it is to figure out what works and what doesn't have determined that IFVs are superior to APCs.
And by the way, let's take a look at the balance between cost and cost effectiveness. Let's take a battle taxi. It provides next to no combat power for the unit. If you just want transportation, get a truck, it's cheaper. However, it has been determined that having a vehicle which can actually fight is far more cost effective. I wonder why that is? Maybe because it's not dead weight.
>>29806542
>I will ignore major issues because it defeats my narrative.
>>29806343
Just slap an auto-cannon on it and you're good to go.
>>29806732
So does shooting the fuck out of that cover with explosive shells.
I want as much ammo and simplicity to this turret as possible since it would represent the bulk of mechanized infantry. It needs to suppress and destroy cover, and usually in that process you kill the infantry behind it. It needs to have plenty of ammo while not being too heavy or taking up too much space.
Remember this is an APC not an IFV I made that post here>>29806366. At the same time there is the second specialized turret that would represent 20-30% of the unit that would be able to have fancy airburst shells.
>>29806735
Those crazy Canadians and their wacky tanks.
>>29806786
I'm not arguing that IFVs are ineffective, I'm just saying that there are always compromises and you have to find the balance. But you're the one who said putting twelve feet of armor on something wouldn't compromise capabilities, which is patently absurd. No combat vehicle (not even a battleship) has anything near that level of protection.
>>29806811
One that does not cut down on troop count is the plan.
>>29806818
stored kills
>>29806863
What?
>>29801701
Or its to allow more adaptability and flexibility in your logistics system.
>LSVW.
Is a monument to all the sins of the Canadian procurement system.
>>29806696
>20mm is fine, airbursting isn't needed when you have infantry that can maneuver and engage. The auto cannon is there to eliminate cover and vehicles If anything I would just give it more ammo instead of a bigger gun. Also if the thing has to reload to engage tanks, then it should just be running away.
This is just wrong. 20 mm does not have anywhere near enough explosives in it to eliminate cover. It doesn't have enough propellant or mass to kill vehicles. Airbursting is insanely effective. Let's say you have someone hiding in a ditch. He'd be protected from all direct fires, and indirect fire would have a hard time hitting him in the ditch. With airbursting ammunition you can fire a single time and shower him in shrapnel. Trust me on this, 20mm is in every way insufficient.
And as it stands, ATGMs don't take up much space, and they aren't only used against tanks. They have their utility against other armored vehicles as well, especially at range.
> would go high pressure before I would go bigger this way it could carry different types of ammo. Sabot, Thermo, and he
Let me put it this way- low pressure guns CAN NOT take out any armored targets. Period. Not even APCs or IFVs. It doesn't have the velocity to do so. Low velocity guns exist so that the projectile's shell can be thinner, meaning more explosives for a given size. A cannon also has the added benefit of being able to take out bunkers or structures with a single shot, something smaller autocannons would be hard pressed to do with dozens of shots. And I told you it wouldn't be taking on MBTs.
If you don't trust me on the utility of the large caliber cannons, trust the US Army. That's why they made the Stryker MGS. That's why they're making MPF. The large caliber cannons are insanely useful direct fire support against everything they come up against. They can even fit in the size of package you want.
>>29806818
>So does shooting the fuck out of that cover with explosive shells.
Not really, no. 20mm will not do much to cover, and you'd actually achieve far greater effects with a round or two of airbursting ammunition. This is in addition to the fact that 30mm has more utility against all targets.
Mate, you have no clue what you're talking about, and you've admitted this, so just listen to us when we're talking.
>>29806757
>No it isn't. Its cannon is over kill, and sucks against infantry.
That's just a lie. A cannon might be overkill, but if you catch the guys in the open, that's what coax is for. If they're in something heavier, you can use the cannon. Trust me on this, tanks are better at killing infantry than you think they are.
>>29806831
> But you're the one who said putting twelve feet of armor on something wouldn't compromise capabilities
I did no such thing. Point out to me where I said that.
