Bradley IFV
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Yes or No?
>>29843461
Yes.
>>29843461
Hell Yes!
>>29843461
Yes, the Bradley is awesome. Great IFV, great scout vehicle, and one of the cutest vehicles in the united States armed forces
If there's one vehicle that gets armchair engineers more assmad than the F-35, its gotta be the Bradley.
I blame the Pentagon Wars, every nigga thinks he's an expert after wathcing it for some reason.
Tanks & APC's
not IFV's
Yes.
t. Operation Flashpoint, Arma 1, Arma 2 veteran
They need to hurry up with the turretless Bradley M113 replacement.
i'll give it a 6/10 at best
circumstantially a good vehicle due to higher armor protection than most alternatives as well as firepower
for ww3 just fuck my shit up senpai you're dead as fuck
>>29843513
>type: infantry fighting vehicle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
>>29843530
Most IFV/APC's are gonna get fucked in WW3 though
t. BMP-3
>>29843524
How heavy is that thing going to be
Have to imagine adopting a 50 year old chassis design wasn't the best decision
>>29843539
IFV's are useless on a modern battlefield. That is my point. We need to dump them altogether
>>29843524
What's it called? Looks noice.
>>29843549
You are retarded, armored cav plays a very important role on the battlefield, and the Bradley gives them abilities they wouldn't have with just an APC.
>>29843540
BMP's are not exactly known for being able to take a hit.
>>29843549
Not much chance of that happening.
>>29843562
Its the autist who argues a light tank and APC is more effective than a pair of IFV's.
If he had his way it would be MBT's hauling trailers that carried infantry.
>>29843524
>>29843564
That was my point
>>29843576
>If he had his way it would be MBT's hauling trailers that carried infantry.
Is that a real thing? Sounds like bullshit.
>>29843576
Interesting idea tbqh
>be sandnigger
>spot tank
>my buddy and I set up a tow to shoot at it
>tusk system stops the tow
>like a spider with its babies, half a company dismounts from something towed behind the tank.
>get raped by infantry
Alternatively
>be in Abrams trailer
>riding in Syria
>"oh shit we're going a little fast" I think to myself
>right as the dick of a driver decided to jump a hill
> 7 men injured, trailer totaled
What could go wrong.
>>29843598
You don't need million dollar strykers just to move some troops around
>>29843646
What's wrong with Strykers?
>>29843551
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) is the alphabet soup name.
>>29843542
The vehicle being replaced is 50 years old you mean.
Reusing Bradley hulls that are in storage will make them cheap as fuck, something like $1.5 mil each. It will also unify logistics and maintenance as all tracked vehicles in an ABCT's except Abrams/Hercules will be a Bradley variant.
The weight should be less than a Bradley because no turret, so 30-35 tons.
>>29843665
They are breddy gud which triggers him.
>>29843639
Ive read all I could and can't imagine which is better. a tow outranges a tank gun
>>29843665
wheels
needlessly expensive
lacking in armor
Basically just fodder for enemy fire
The whole concept of all stryker brigades strikes me as strange & pointless
>>29843704
The Stryker is an APC. It's not really supposed to be shot at in the first place.
>>29843704
unit cost 5 million. We could get a namer for that much.
>>29843665
Niche vehicle for when you need something heavier than a MRAP but lighter than a Brad. The issue is people using it in roles it was not designed for.
>>29843639
>U-haul: military division
does make me think about something though, involving the containers on skycranes.
>>29843704
The Stryker has (comparatively) thin armor because it is designed to be a fast, lightweight IFV that can traveled down roads quickly.
There is an armor package that you can strap on if you want it.
>>29843718
lol no
>>29843461
its a giant soda can thats failed horribly in everything it's supposed to do
>>29843738
plus you can bolt a bigass fucking tank gun to it and have a modern day TD.
or it can be a amberlamps, a mortar hauler, anything really.
it's like a bigass armored humvee
>>29843738
And 14.5mm resistant is pretty standard for APC's.
>>29843749
no
>>29843729
Yes
>>29843738
>IFV
Stryker was always designed to be an APC, at least until the 30mm cannon variants are finally rolled out.
>>29843750
Anything except a useful vehicle on a battlefield filled with light anti-armor weapons or artillery
>>29843775
From my point of view, an APC is a lightweight IFV and an IFV is a heavy APC.
There is not clear distinct line, and I will not indulge in the autism of arguing about what is what.
>>29843781
Your concept of useful and various militaries concept of useful do not coincide.
>>29843827
The stryker was only intended to be a temporary interim vehicle
>>29843858
The 'interim' part was dropped early on, long before the first Stryker was even built.
>>29843920
And yet we're still stuck with the vehicle
>>29843924
That's why he said that "interim" was dropped.
>>29843931
We could have bradley brigades instead of this Stryker cluster fuck
imagine that
>>29843986
Bradley's do not have the strategic mobility needed for a rapid reaction force.
>>29844007
>strategic mobility
>rapid reaction force.
love these memes
What conceivable enemy could a Stryker be rapidly sent to fight, that they would be capable of fighting?
>>29844014
You do know that Strykers can mount a variety of weapons, right? They can certainly intercept an enemy advance or reinforce a point in the line long enough for heavier assets to get into place.
>>29844014
I am sorry but you are a retard.
>>29844014
Any Russian made APC or IFV
>>29844014
>>29844075
>1000 words to say essentially nothing
>>29843574
>"comrade, let us drive rear of tank towards enemy!"
>>29844014
just making sure, you are aware of your mental illness right?
>>29843562
Preach brother
If you don't know the role difference of an APC and an IFV/ICV leave this board and stop pretending to know anything about A vehicles.
>>29843461
Nope, had to deal with those pieces of shit
>>29843461
It feeld good when you are taking fire from somewhere you cant see and you hear some tracks wewewe sound and mama bradley pulls up lays down the 25mm on all dat ass and delivers the ripits
>>29843775
Why not just buy LAV III's instead? That's what the Stryker is based on, its practically a clone.
>>29843704
>The whole concept of all stryker brigades strikes me as strange & pointless
So you don't see the point in having motorized infantry? That's what a Stryker Brigade is- motorized infantry that promotes combined arms all the way down to the company level. A Stryker infantry company has a MASSIVE level of combined arms firepower. In addition to being a full fledged infantry company, it has two 120mm mortars and three 105mm cannons. All this on an extremely mobile chassis.
>WHY CAN'T APCs TAKE HITS LIKE TANKS
god damn you all to hell
>>29844886
Sure it's great but why don't they have some bradleys and abrams in their brigade too?
>>29843521
Thank you for your ALL, MOVE TO TRUCK AT 6 O'CLOCK.
>>29844928
Because they are heavy, expensive, require vastly more maintenance, are less mechanically reliable, and don't possess the same level of strategic mobility as the Stryker.
They work in units of their own, as they possess similar characteristics. Tossing them in a SBCT removes the advantages of the SBCT. That doesn't mean that they can't be task organized with Abrams at a tactical level when the forces are already right next to each other, but generally speaking they don't require them.
>>29843665
You mean the Gavin?
>>29843986
>We could have bradley brigades instead of this Stryker cluster fuck
Except the Bradley and the Stryker fill different roles.
The Bradly is a heavy IFV.
The Stryker is a lightweight IFV.
You can't replace one with the other.
>>29845765
>The Stryker is a lightweight IFV.
It's an APC. It gaining a 30mm autocannon doesn't change this.
>>29843549
(you)
Fuck Yes.
They've knocked out more T-72s and other slavshit than most MBTs combined, and that's not even their intended role.
>>29843551
Gavin Mk.2
>>29846084
That's not what you linked, and is indeed bullshit, by the way. The key difference is armor.
>>29846228
It's not an IFV, you cunt. Is a BTR an IFV? No. They're both APCs.
>>29845227
Fuck off sparky
>>29846323
The BTR is a lightweight IFV just like the Stryker. It could also be called an APC.
APC = Lightweight IFV
IFV = Heavy APC
Now you understand.
>>29846362
And I'm telling you that's retarded, and not used by anyone who has a lick of sense. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong, and you're an idiot for saying it.
>>29843461
>not loveing the ground hind
>2016
>>29843713
Tank destroyers don't need armor, and tanks are for exploiting weaknesses in enemy lines too, not for fighting enemy tanks
t. strategist
>>29846499
The TDs didn't NEED armor. It didn't fit their doctrinal use of hurrying around to counter armor. The best defense was proper positioning. In the Bulge they achieved a 6:1 kill to loss ratio when integrated into the defense scheme. Tank Destroyer Doctrine was meant for countering larger armored thrusts, which were faced about a grand total of once- the Bulge. As you see in the above quote, they proved their worth.
Medium tanks were designed, expected to, and trained for fighting other tanks. Read the FMs. Why do you think the Sherman had the 75mm gun? It was one of the largest tank guns in the world at the time of its design, more than able to penetrate everything it came up against at first.
>>29844158
>I'm too retarded to read anything that is longer than 2 sentences
>>29846526
dear god i laughed
wtf sherman 75mms sucked cock versus enemy armor, get your facts straight.
my point was, you can't just scream THE APC ISNT MEANT TO TAKE FIRE NYET because 'muh doctrine'
when invariably it will be shoehorned into this role
hence why americans had shit tanks compared to what their industry could have produced (ie- the pershing) and only after paying in blood did anyone realize this.
Strykerfags are just as delusional.
>we wuz wheels n shieet
>we wuz making easier target for IED and shieet because stuck on roads
>we wuz fast on roads n shiet though so worth
>>29846557
The US didn't have shit tanks because of their industry though. They had shit tanks because their higher ups were retarded. They were offered a better gun, totally free, by the Brits when Britain saw they had the 75mm and that the Sherman was primarily an anti-infantry tank by design. Britain learned that you DONT give anti-infantry tanks a shit gun because they will inevitably face enemy armour and if your gun can't kill the enemy tank, you have a rotten egg. That's why the Sherman wasn't even worth it's salt outside of numbers until they put the 76 on it.
>>29846557
The 75mm was plenty for the bulk of German armor.
>>29846557
Mate, I understand that you're trolling, but please, use capitalization.
>wtf sherman 75mms sucked cock versus enemy armor, get your facts straight.
Incorrect. The 75mm was capable of penetrating the armor of every German tank that existed at the time it was designed, and continued to be capable of penetrating the vast majority of German armor throughout the entirety of the war. Only the big cats, which were relatively few in number, especially on the Western Front, gave the 75mm some difficulty, however these were later designs.
So if you're going to shitpost, be correct about it.
>>29846579
Please stop. You don't know what you're talking about.
>>29846557
>wtf sherman 75mms sucked cock versus enemy armor,
Well memed my friend.
In reality the Sherman's 75mm gun was very adequate for most situations. The only scenario where it had some problems was dealing with the Tiger's frontal armor.
>>29846579
The 17 pounder was only good as an anti vehicle weapon, and the 76mm could kill anything the 17 pounder could.
>>29846579
The US army aways wanted for the Sherman to have a more powerful gun.
However, there were technically challenges to overcome and getting a tank into mass production was more important than waiting for a 76mm gun to be developed. Especially since the 75mm was really bretty gud for most situations anyway.
>>29846557
I heard an anon on 4chan once who said he was part of a stryker crew, it could all be bollocks though. He said that The Stryker was a heavier and slightly more armoured humvee, not a lighter Bradley.
>>29846711
Would you stop posting? You sound like a retard.
>>29846711
That's basically true. The Stryker is a tool for getting a large numbers of troops to where they are needed, quickly. It is not intended to push the front lines. However, anybody who says that it can't fight is wrong.
>>29846737
I never said that my source was valid, I even said it could all be bollocks, or it could be entirely true, I only know what I skim read off of wikipedia.
>>29846742
Is that stryker with the 30mm (I think) gun in serice yet or was it just a prototype by kongsberg?
With that and a few TOW missiles, it could be able to fight, but Im not sure I would expect it to take a hit very well.
Dont be so sensitive.
>>29846742
>>29846772
Didnt mean to write sensitive to you.
>>29846772
>I never said that my source was valid, I even said it could all be bollocks, or it could be entirely true, I only know what I skim read off of wikipedia.
I didn't say it wasn't valid, I'm saying you wrote like a retard.
>>29846772
It all depends on what you mean by "take a hit."
If I understand correctly, the Stryker is resistant to 14.5 mm. For the particular niche that the Stryker serves, that is fine.
>>29846772
The first 30mm Stryker of the 81 that are going to that unit in Europe was supposedly built in March, and a bunch are getting a Javelin added to their CROWS.
>>29846772
>Is that stryker with the 30mm (I think) gun in serice yet or was it just a prototype by kongsberg?
It's not in service yet, but it has been ordered and is being built. Half of them are getting 30mms, half are getting RWSs with Javelins. And then there is a platoon of them per battalion that has TOW missiles. They are at the moment together in a company at the brigade level, but they are being directly assigned to the battalions soon, if they haven't already.
>>29844879
Dont the U.S use Bradleys in an IFV roll and Stryker for APC roll? the turret would take up extra troop space
>>29846844
The word is ROLE, you shitcuck.
>>29846815
TOW missiles and the Russian equivalent and tandem charge rockets like the RPG-29. Fair enough I suppose, most vehicles would have a tough time shrugging off weapons like these, but especially after seeing countless videos of the middle east recently, where everyone and their mothers has one , I´d certainly say its cause for concern.
They seem strong enough to survive against vanilla RPG7s though, so thats good I guess.
>>29846804
ahh fair enough then
>>29846844
Which is why the 30mm that Strykers are getting is in a remote turret that does not intrude into the passenger compartment.
Its cute to see America try and develop a decent IFV
the bradley eats taxpayer money and shits infantry. love it.
I have a story about it in arma 2
>be me
>2013
>I forget what the gamemode is, but its pvp
>get bradley
>tell everyone to get in
>30 mins of rounding up retards later, we load the bradley onto a big ass plane (looked like an ac-130, but was called something else)
>fly over capture area
>DROP IT
>parachute drops
>we land
>shoot everyone and disembark
>we win
I also did it with an abrams, but that time I got fucked bc I ran out of ammo
>>29846844
the konigsberg turret doesn't take up internal space
>>29846947
What is that? Super duper CV90 or that german puma thingy?
>>29846965
Its a CV9040C.
The latest verision of the CV90 with added armor on both the turrent and hull.
>>29846965
CV9040.
It's a good, solid IFV. Some good systems, very good chassis.
Guns very punchy, but it's also very old and has significant drawbacks. Hand loaded after every 22 shots or so, so all the ammos in with the crew.
>>29846947
Looks a bit like a mini Merk 4 turret.
>>29846981
They are finally updating CV9040's? That model was really stripped down and lightly armored compared to the CV9030 and CV9035.
>>29843461
perhaps
>>29846499
>>29846526
TDs were never meant for anything except ambushing advancing enemy armor, you shitlords.
>>29846362
>battlefield 4 real life
>>29846981
They should swap out the 40 and replace it with a 30. The 40 might be more powerful but the ammunition is too big for a vehicle of that size. And IFV needs a large store of ammunition to support infantry in combat.
>>29847158
They have upgraded about 15 so far to the CV90C verision.
The only difference between the 9040, 9030 and the 9035 is electronics and armament.
>>29846362
BTR stands for Bronetransportyor
Literally "Armored transport"
The Russian term for IFV is, wait for it
Boevaya Mashina Pehoty
Combat Vehicle for Infantry
what does that remind you of.
>>29847166
Mate. Tank Destroyer doctrine was such that the Tank Destroyer Battalions were kept in reserve to counter the enemy's large thrusts of armor. They were to find proper positions in front of the advance and fight from there. They would pull back before they could be overrun, and rinse and repeat. It's not exactly ambushing, but it's close enough.
>>29846887
I think only the M1134 uses TOW's, infantry and Strykers with CROWS would use Javelins.
>>29846993
That's purely because its an old 40mm. They could easily upgrade it to that new caseless gun if they bent over for Britain and France and save a shitton of space for similar levels/superior (if you believe the hype) of firepower.
They probably have shittons of 40mm in storage and don't deem it worth the cost of buying new stuff.
>>29847323
>Javelins
Javelins aren´t wire guided, are they? I know ive seen vids of TOWs being launched from both Bradleys and Strykers, but I can´t say for sure.
I´ll admit, I dont know as much about the Stryker as I know about other American vehicles.
>>29847383
Javelins are the ones the infantry use. They're a top attack munition, IR guided. Fire and forget.
>>29847166
Then why did they come with a machinegun, shitlord?
>>29847406
Nah it turns out you are correct about the M1134 thing you said previously. I thought we were just referring to the Stryker family of vehicles.
Wikipedia says pic related is a M1134 when I thought the M1134 was the gavin used in nayum and so on. I never realised the US army have an entire version of the Stryker dedicated to firing TOWs.
tl;dr I think you are correct.
Got run over by one once.
10/10 would recommend.
>>29847447
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Half of all Strykers are going to have RWSs that have a Javelin on them in addition to the existing weapon. The M1134s will still exist, they have longer range and are heavier.
>>29847490
I dont think the comment I posted went through so I´ll start again.
I got muddled up between all the different variants of the stryker.Thanks for clearing that up and Ill be sure to remember that.
Earlier when I first mentioned the TOW, I was referring to whether or not a stryker could survive hits from wire guided missiles and tandem charge rockets. While it may be powerful enough to destroy most thngs its weapons hits, I doubt its anywhere near strong enough to take a hit from most anti- tank weapons.
>>29847383
Javelins are fire and forget IR guided, tandem charge HEAT warheads that can top attack (arc up high and come down).
TOW's are wire guided SACLOS while new TOW's are radio guided SACLOS. 2A's are tandem charge HEAT, 2B's have a pair of EFP's that fire downward as it flies overhead, Bunkerbusters are a HE warhead.
>>29847612
>Earlier when I first mentioned the TOW, I was referring to whether or not a stryker could survive hits from wire guided missiles and tandem charge rockets. While it may be powerful enough to destroy most thngs its weapons hits, I doubt its anywhere near strong enough to take a hit from most anti- tank weapons.
Definitely not. ERA will have to do its work.
>>29847666
Well thats what I was thinking, but slapping 2 tons of ERA on makes the vehicle heavier.
Does the stryker have a v shaped hull, becomes all that ERA or slat armour i useless if an IED goes off under the vehicle.
>>29847728
Originally Strykers were flat bottomed, they are being converted to a double V hull one Stryker BCT at a time.
>>29847728
That's the cost of protection.
Some Strykers have Double V hulls. Others were built before they were added.
>>29847447
>I thought the M1134 was the gavin used in nayum
Get back in your shipping container, Mike Sparks
>>29847612
>Earlier when I first mentioned the TOW, I was referring to whether or not a stryker could survive hits from wire guided missiles and tandem charge rockets. While it may be powerful enough to destroy most thngs its weapons hits, I doubt its anywhere near strong enough to take a hit from most anti- tank weapons.
Most APCs/IFVs can't take hits from anti-tank weapons because those weapons were pretty specifically designed to killed targets far more heavily armored than they are. Lighter armored vehicles are generally meant to sit farther back out of range of RPGs and let the infantry do the heavy lifting while they provide fire support.
>>29847835
But thats what I was saying. These vehicles couldnt really fight. They may be able to pack a punch but the moment something touches them, it goes tits up. And considering how many anti tank weapons there are out there in the middle east at the moment, the threat of AT weapons is very real.
>>29847863
>They may be able to pack a punch but the moment something touches them, it goes tits up.
By that logic bullets make infantry obsolete.
The best defense is not to get hit in the first place. This is where shit like proper positioning, concealment, and area suppression come into play.
>>29847872
>The best defense is not to get hit in the first place. This is where shit like proper positioning, concealment, and area suppression come into play.
Yeah, thats true. I guess Ive just let all the videos of arabs getting fucked by anti tank weapons go to my mind.
>>29847898
Yeah, the Arabs' big failings is that they treat armored vehicles as mobile bunkers rather than maneuver assets, so they just plant them in the middle of open ground and expect to be impervious to everything.
>>29847898
A combined arms force like the US military is a completely different beast. When the US army goes out, they've got Apaches scoping out ahead to murder any anti-tank weapons before the tanks come.
>>29843665
To expensive for what you get. You can get fully tracked vehicles that are only minimally slower on road and either similar or exceeding it in performance in every other way for the price.
>>29847967
>To expensive for what you get. You can get fully tracked vehicles that are only minimally slower on road and either similar or exceeding it in performance in every other way for the price.
Weight is also a pretty big factor, and tracked vehicles tend to be a lot heavier.
>>29847978
For the US army? If they cared about weight they would never accept M1 Abrams for service.
>>29846362
Russia adopted the BTR-80A with a simpler drop in 30mm cannon turret instead of the BTR-90. They don't want an ATGM that cannot be fired on the move in the BTR - hence some of the BTR's getting BMD-4 100mm/30mm ATGM turrets in a BTR formation
>>29847993
You do realize that different vehicles have different design priorities, right? They wanted the Stryker to be faster than the Bradley and lighter and more armored than the Humvee, and at the same time be air-transportable. Weight is a huge design priority for a role like that.
>>29848019
>faster than the Bradley and lighter and more armored than the Humvee
Fucked that up. I meant faster and lighter than the Bradley and more protected than the Humvee
>>29847993
The Abrams is heavy because it is a main battle tank. You know what a tank is right? Modern MBT usually weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60 tons.
>>29848046
>Modern MBT usually weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60 tons.
Abrams is in neighbourhood of 70-80 tons.
>>29848049
The M1A2 tops out at around 62 tons. Try harder.
>>29847967
Wheels have pretty much every advantage when a vehicle is 30 tons or less.
>>29847967
If you're trying to make a vehicle weigh less than 25 metric tons then wheels are the way to go. If you want a more heavily armored vehicle, then tracks are the way.
>>29847917
Not entirely. Their big failing is they forget how to do combined arms.
>>29844014
I was assigned to a Stryker brigade when I was in AFG in '12 and you're a fucking retard if you don't see their strategic use.
>>29849155
How much work did you do mounted as opposed to dismounted?
>>29844509
>tfw you drive this pos
>>29849333
We did a fair bit of walking/humping up hills to dirtball villages, but it was always nice knowing we had someone on the RWS providing cover.
>>29843549
You win award for Dumbest Shit of the Day
>>29843461
M6 is the tip of the Bradley spear
>>29849602
Only M2, M3 and M7 Bradley's still exist.
>>29849638
I know, I was one of the last 14R's in the Army
>>29843461
I was a light scout, but still had to train on the fucker in basic and I hated it. Too big, too tall, super fucking loud, and can't climb goat trails like a HMMWV. And it gets you thinking like a tanker.
>>29843499
>great scout vehicle
Lies.
>>29848120
>>29847978
what is this meme of tracked vehicles being heavier? It's not true in the slightest.
>>29849555
Humping to villages you could have driven to with a tracked vehicle?
>>29850577
What is this tendency to call things you can't refute a meme.
>>29850808
Nothing in herently makes a track system weigh more than wheels
>>29843665
Just a program coming out of pure nepotism and the mind of a deranged Neocons that wanted to fuck countries up on a shoestring budget with wheeled trucks.
>>29850808
tracked vehicles are usually heavier than wheeled vehicles since they can be.
with wheels you get shitty ground pressure if shits too heavy, basically sets a weight limit. with tracks you get good ground pressure with heavy shit.
look at the fucking bv206, they are not any heavier than a wheeled vehicle
>>29849665
>You will never shoot down tactical air assets with your Stinger'd Bradleys.
>>29850577
Doesn't walking outside of it negate its speed entirely?
It's heavy, slow and noisy but it makes pretty good dakka.
>>29847187
if you ignore the different versions yes.
cv90c = cv9030 mkIII
and so on, but the difference from mkII to mkIII is pretty large. IED protection, internal layout, engines etc
>>29846414
>the ground hind
25mm casing vs. 5.56mm.
>>29846362
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle
This is the therm you were looking for.
>>29843549
Gliderfag, I can tell by your writing style that you are decently intelligent. That was the good part, here's the bad part: you are proof that a sufficient amount of mental illness can make even a smart person argue dumb and wrong things.
>>29851393
You should learn the difference between strategic and tactical mobility.
>>29851336
count how many wheels a tracked vehicle has
look up how much tracks themselves weigh
>>29851377
there are no wheeled vehicles that I am aware of that are comparable to a bv206
>>29851530
No, that's a general term covering everything from tanks to apc/ifvs and SP arty
He is arguing that the APC/IFV distinction doesn't real and is just a bunch of hot air by armchair experts. And he is right. APCs have been functionally IFVs from the very beginning. The only case I can think of where APCs were used as mere "battle taxis" was Egyptian BTR-152s in Sinai during the 6-day war.
The vast majority of APCs since ever have had some kind of heavy weapon mounted, and in combat they have almost always supported their dismounts with heavy weapons fire.
>>29851354
Clinton was president when development of the Stryker started.
>>29851655
>strategic
You mean operational. Although to be fair, the Stryker has excellent strategic mobility, operational mobility, and, on pavement, tactical mobility.
>>29851476
Is that a tapered case?
burgers copying slav tech?
>>29851696
you can compare it to a 5 ton truck
>>29851794
>5 ton
They're called MTVs now
>>29851700
>APCs have been functionally IFVs from the very beginning
Are you really going to argue that BMP-3 and BTR-80 are functionally the same, lol?
>The vast majority of APCs since ever have had some kind of heavy weapon mounted
But that's false. They were armed with light weapons in order to be able to protect themselves, not for any kind of offence.
>>29851851
>Are you really going to argue that BMP-3 and BTR-80 are functionally the same, lol?
Functionally? Yes, pretty much. They are both slightly different ways of approaching the same tactical template.
>They were armed with light weapons in order to be able to protect themselves, not for any kind of offence.
This is what I am arguing against. Maybe someone somewhere said that, but it's almost never been the reality. In practice, APCs support their dismounts with heavy weapons fire, often in an overwatch capacity. IOW, "battle taxi" APCs never really existed because the end users used them as IFVs. I wish I had saved the pasta about this, it had lots of examples.
>>29851785
For the sake of discussion, when was tapering shell cases 'invented'.
>>29851973
A lightly armoured wheeled APC armed with a 30mm cannon is functionally the same as a heavy armoured tracked IFV armed with a 100mm cannon? Are you like for real?
>"battle taxi" APCs never really existed because the end users used them as IFVs
Just because something can shoot doesn't automatically make it an IFV. APCs are used for fire support, not for combat offensive. No one uses BTR as an IFV. That's what BMP exists for.
>>29851973
Which is why we need to accept that the APC/IFV concept of obsolete, and adopt the tanks with trailers
>>29852170
>>29852189
Infantry need to be transported
Infantry need to be supported
2 totally seperate things that demand totally different vehicles.
Why try to hamfist them into one?
>>29843461
The BFV is pretty neat for what it is.
Just don't expect it to take an RPG or tank round.
>>29852257
>that demand totally different vehicles
Your opinion is duly noted.
>>29852311
Bradleys do alright against RPGs, at least with ERA
>>29852311
That looks like Red Cloud
>>29852661
Older cold war ones, yes, but some of the newer ones with standoff warheads can reportedly even get through the reactive armor.
Even with ERA, there are significant weak spots.
>>29844928
Because then they'd need twice the mechanics, twice the tools, twice the parts, twice the ammunition to account for two different types of vehicles in the same unit.
Not to mention the fact that in any given fight half of the unit would be unsuited for the job.
>>29843665
The MGS was total dog shit, I'm glad I'm back home safe in fort bliss Inna Anrams and out of that shit hole fort Louis with strikers.
>>29852257
>Infantry need to be transported
Yes.
>Infantry need to be supported
Yes.
>That requires two separate vehicles
Not necessarily. That's the whole point of the APC/IFV concept: to combine those two functions into 1 badass vehicle.
>>29849155
RC south?
>>29851851
From my point of view, an APC is just an IFV with less armor and a smaller gun and an IFV is just an APC with more armor is a bigger gun.
>>29851785
Yes.
Wat?
>>29853384
For some reason I don't think you have ever been in the presence of a 'Striker'.
>>29853459
Yeah, and self-propelled artillery is just a tank with higher gun elevation.
It doesn't work this way. APC is an APC and IFV is an IFV. They're both AFV's. APC is a lightly armoured AFV with a small gun designed to transporting and limited fire support, IFV is a heavier armoured AFV with a bigger gun directly designed for combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
>>29844879
The Bison is an APC variant that doesn't have a turret. The Canadian Forces is basically a supported Stryker division with TUA instead of guns.
>>29844928
Because Stryker Brigades are meant to fit in aircraft for that whole rapid deployment schtick.
Then there's the parts commonality so you can just ship a bunch of the same crap for one generic platform instead of multiple.
>>29853841
It gets a bit blurred when the APC gets larger armament. However, I think it still is clearly identifiable. When you look at the later BTR series, or even the 30mm armed Stryker, they clearly don't have the capability to provide sustained direct support of their troops against enemy armored targets. They do have a bit of capability against them, but completely lack the armor that would enable this role.
>>29853990
Pentagon Wars got a lot wrong but it does have the best depiction of feature creep ever committed to film.
