AAV7 Good or bad ?
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
Redpill me on the AAV7. Seems pretty effective, you guys don't shit on it as much as you do on the M113.
Bump thread.
second bump
Bump
It's sort of a piece of shit but no one minds because it's supposed to be one since it's just a big boat that can go on land and no one expects any more from it.
>>29367521
>comes equipped with reactive armor
>comes equipped with smoke launchers
>auto grenade launcher
>twin linked ratta-tat-tat's
>amphibious
>great armor
>heaviest vehicle in game: just roll over obstacles
>mobile spawn point: maximum reinforcements
Pretty versatile and durable vehicle, sempai. Just use it smart and position it with an ounce of forethought and you'll be good. Its large profile make it vulnerable to sneaky enemies with C4. Park it a short distance from the MCOM and angle it so enemy rpg's don't impact perpendicularly. Get it near some sort of cover if aircraft are a threat. Have one engineer focus on repairs on the reverse side while another mans the turret, keeping C4 dudes at bay, watching flanks, and nade'ing the MCOM. Gunner can switch to driver to deploy smoke as needed. Now just wait for your good-for-nothing team mates to spawn and capture the site.
>>29367521
For landing troops it's just fine and dandy. The problems with it come when it's tasked with roaming around being an APC/IFV on land.
Its a amphibious assault vehicle, not meant for direct combat. It goes from ship to shore with troops inside and does a damn good job at it
>>29367521
The AAV is the bread-and-butter of the USMC. I would say that it is very good at doing what it is designed to do, which is transport a group of about 20 marines from an amphibious assault carrier to a landing zone on a beach. Just don't try to use it for direct combat. It doesn't have much armament.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuADa5fc2c8
It is also getting a pretty substantial upgrade right now to improve the armor and generally make it more IED resistant.
Well what the fuck happened to the AAAV?
>>29368292
Well no it's also shit at sea because it's slow as hell & can't really swim more than a kilometer.
Why fill amphibs with APC's that suck ass on land?
They can't swim from over the horizon, so just buy cheap landing craft to deploy a non-amphibious vehicle.
>>29369684
Uprating a 1500hp engine to 2700hp had a negative effect on reliability.
>>29369972
Look at the retard and laugh.
>>29369623
>IED resistance
>on an amphibious vehicle
Nothing says DoD like buying a vehicle for beach landings and then using it in the desert to patrol against sand niggers.
They are very cool vehicles other than the fact that they are never not broken.
>>29370367
Thank you for letting us know that you know nothing on the subject.
>>29368042
bf3 memes
>>29370346
?
The whole concept is flawed
You could buy cheap landing craft with 4000+ mile ranges that could carry 50 APC's, there is no purpose or reason for AAV's/LAV's
it's a shitbox hybrid with 40mm
it unloads angry marines carrying over 130lbs
it's a wrecking ball, bottom line. there's no finesse to what it is. it's just a thing.
40mm is plenty effective with thermal and moderate ranges. there's not much to evaluate. it's a hammer with 1 job.
>>29370931
what the fuck are you on about, your proposal is literally 1932 tier
>>29370993
He's not wrong
>>29371051
>my scenario stands
Its replacement was shitcanned for no reason, and they're buying godawful Piranha V as a replacement.
They break down nonstop. I've seen two sink firsthand and I've been in one that was taking on water.
You get carbon monoxide poisoning sitting in the troop compartment with the hatches closed. Nobody should be able to fall asleep so easily in there.
They're fucking ovens in anything above freezing conditions.
Unless you have the SAPI carrier, you have to put your gear on after you get in the driver's station or the TC since the design is outdated as fuck.
The electrical traverse for the turret never, ever works and the mechanical backup is garbage.
>>29372717
>Its replacement was shitcanned for no reason,
Absurd unit cost and an engine that broke constantly.
>and they're buying godawful Piranha V as a replacement.
Neither contender for the ACV is related to the Piranha family.
![kosovolanding[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pCOHS9o.jpg "kosovolanding[1].jpg")
AAV crews in Iraq thought they didn't have to worry about IEDs.
My battalion got a lot of extra work because of the muhreen's belief.
Unless the add-on armor is mounted, literally vulnerable to small arms fire. Shit tier
>>29370367
What if the beach is mined?
![393a98082c4182623e4102a40ab41a02[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LPbD18t.jpg "393a98082c4182623e4102a40ab41a02[1].jpg")
>>29374302
What are the turret requirements for the ACV? As far as I know they're only planning on mounting a .50 cal RWS like they do on almost every other vehicle they have.
An option for a 25mm-40mm autocannon would be forward thinking if they also decided to start replacing LAVs with ACVs
>>29369972
hi sprey
>>29375308
I have not seen any requirements stated for anything past ACV 1.1 having a Stryker esque RWS.
IIRC both BAE and SAIC's offerings can mount a 30mm in an unmanned turret.
>>29375308
The AAV-SU and LAV-25A2 will be around till at least 2035.
>>29375583
Paper armor.
Thank fuck they've never landed under fire.
We invaded favelas with it and it went fine. No one was destroyed and nobody died.
>>29367521
Not super hot. It's good enough at moving marines to shore, but on shore it's a bit iffy. The armor, in particular, is shit. The new upgrade corrects things mostly. Still light on the armor, though. Further, its armament is only good against infantry, but I suppose that's acceptable.
It's decent, but not great, but also horribly obsolete.
>>29367521
Awwww it looks pouty
Don't understand its purpose. If the usmc upgraded helicopters to be able to land on the beach instead they would have a vehicle thats still useful after the initial assault.
Also... can someone explain how in any idea this ugly fucker is a good idea?
>>29375866
>expecting a bunch of jarhead yahoos to think logically for even one second
a boat requires less training than a helo, though, so it's probably easier to just instruct a bunch of shitheads how to drive boats than have to go through and train pilots which takes a lot of time
>>29375884
looks cool.
>>29375884
I would think it's supposed to be like the AAV7, but you can stuff more armour on it. I suppose. Amphibious tank ?
>>29367521
If 50 caliber and 20mm can penetrate this, what's the point ? It's going to get absolutely shredded in an actual landing.
Not as bood as the ZBD/ZTS-05
>>29376835
Protip, you don't conduct landings until defenses have been suppressed.
>>29375866
Here is an even better idea, use helicopters and amphibious vehicles at the same time.
>>29375884
It's a experimental cargo transport.
Superseded by the RHIB the second the USMC and USN got a clue how to attack coasts
>>29377244
Protip: It's "You don't conduct landings" period, right now.
They certainly are not equipped to do so
>>29367521
WHY THE FUCK IS THIS NOT IN SERVICE
http://youtu.be/l94arUeh1XI
>>29377034
Why is Chinese landing armor so superior?
Why the fuck are Americans struggling so much with a simple formula?
>>29375884
The flappy things work in both land and water, letting you use a single drive train, and they're more resistant to damage than normal tracks, IE you can strike a mine or take a shell on one and you're not tracked, since the flaps are basically armor for the tacks that drive them, not saying its a good or bad idea, just that's the "why"
>>29378917
They are actually thinking about it, training to do it, and have an actual target to use it on
The US has not, so their doctrine turns into justification for expensive equipment while actual capabilities disappear.
>>29378917
Because Opposed beach landing are straight up suicide that you only prepare for if you're willing to tolerate casualties in the tens of thousands. It ain't the second world war anymore and Murica hasnt carried out a true amphibious assault since Korea.
>>29378859
Isn't the AAV being upgraded specifically to address the concerns raised in that vehicle?
>>29378996
Opposed beach landings are MANDATORY because long range/aerial bombardment will not magically kill anyone & everyone. As well, these amphibious vehicles will procede inland and be fighting there, something they are largely incapable of.
Further, you don't land on beachs anyways, since the point of amphibious invasion is to INVADE, meaning you need ports/harbors to deploy follow on troops.
Meaning you will be assaulting a garrisoned force.
Currently the US is doctrinally incapable of carrying out an amphibious operation.
>>29378859
Because of
>>29378989
>>29378996
Americans have LCAC, and no enemy can defend their entire coastline. IF we ever need to do an opposed seaborne attack we'll just put land vehicles ashore wherever there will be the least resistance. After we've done an Air Assault to secure the area immediately behind the beach. Unless we are cornered into it there will never be another American attack in the style of Normandy, Torch or the Pacific islands because they are simply too costly. To that end we don't spend much time or money developing the tools needed for a situation we intend to avoid. China on the other hand Intends to someday Invade Taiwan and Japan, among others, for which they will need to carry out an amphibious assault to establish a beachhead.
We have no intention of invading anywhere where we cannot set up our "beachhead" in a neighboring nation and cross the border with the fullest possible advantage on our side. Why give anyone a fight they might possibly win?
>>29378859
Because it's an overpriced, unreliable piece of shit
>>29379065
They're not mandatory unless you are invading a small island with a large army or invading a major power that has hegemony on its continent.
We've already pacified all the potential islands and we have no intention of EVER invading China's mainland where they could use people like we use fire support.
Where is America gonna conduct a beach landing familia? Cuba? Indonesia? If the Chicomms take Taiwan we sure as hell are not gonna try to take it back.
Were not in the business of invading people who have real military power, we haven't been for a long time, Democracies don't start major wars intentionally, the people tolerate bush wars and sandboxes, but there would never be any kind of public support for that kind of operation unless some other nation attacked us first in a major way, and no nation right now except maybe Britain has the ability to actually do that. China and Russia lack meaningful navies, a sea war against use would last for hours or days while our subs dismantled their entire fleets and sank all their merchant vessels.
The other point to be made is we have military bases and allied states everywhere specifically so we don't have to take ports and beaches anymore. We learned the lesson already and adapted our geopolitics to make amphibious assault a non-issue.
>>29379125
They don't need to defend their whole coast
Theres only a limited number of areas where you can actually land transport ships & deploy heavy forces.
The beach invasion worked at normandy because they floated a harbor across the strait.
Only Omaha was an issue on Normandy, because they didn't manage to get armor onto the beach.
>>29379226
>Democracies don't start major wars intentionally
Sure they do
They just arrange the enemy to "start" it, via a pearl harbor or a 9/11.
Panama happened only 25 years ago, something similar is easily possible. Yet it'll be the same thing as panama, all the expensive useless amphibious capability is ignored, since doctrinally it doesn't work, and you just airlift your whole force.
>>29379226
You honestly thing we wouldn't support and liberate tiwan? I'd be the first to sign up and I've never even met someone from their.
>>29379260
>Panama
>major wars
Panama.
>>29379235
We don't land heavy forces anymore, we deploy light forces, since our light forces can badly maul most peoples heaviest, and our heavy forces roll in across the border of a neighboring state. No military on earth can stand against us in a battle of Maneuver, so we turn every battle into a battle of Maneuver, we take the Sun Tzu route, we win the battle, then we start shooting. I'd re-iterate my earlier question, who are we going to invade where we cannot simply roll across the border from a friendly nation after doing all out setup and assembly there? If someone tries to launch spoiling attacks they're given us a DEFENSIVE field engagement, which we are even better at. There's no one on earth right now that can stop an American ground army with American air support on even terms, so why would we do anything but ground attack with air support? We did Iraq twice the exact same way, and both times it was a complete steamroll, the other side has yet to issue an effective retort.
>>29379320
We'd resist the invasion, but if they took Island we would not bleed to take it back. If the Island is taken Taiwan is over, only the PRC remains. There is not a chance in hell you'd ever get the American people to draft and sacrifice tens of thousands of lives unless China pearl harbored us badly first. Korea got a pass because people didn't really understand what was going on, Nam people were being lied to and they knew it and that turned into a shitstorm so messy if basically broke America for about 20 years, we are literally still recovering from the social upheaval causes by Nam. Gulf Wars 1 and 2 our casualties are light an infrequent and people throw fits every time they heard about more.
>>29379388
any island country
any country that can beat their neighbor in a war, iraq tried to invade saudi arabia after all, hosting a foreign military build up is an act of war.
>>29378185
Meanwhile in reality the ability was just demonstrated in an exercise in Australia.
>>29379499
Yea, hosting us is a hostile act but usually the hosting is done in a nation where aggression has already been displayed. SA was basically at war with Iraq after kuwait, but neither side made any moves, SA couldn't engage Saddam head on but Saddam hadn't yet gained the power to attack SA outright. We built up in the meantime. Very few countries can beat their neighbors in a war once our advance elements are reinforcing them, and our advance elements can be in place in a matter of hours or days. After that our buildup become more and more unmovable. Iraq tried to Invade Saudi Arabia and failed, miserably. At the time Saddam had the fourth largest army on earth.
Like I said the relevant islands nations we either have already pacified or have no intention of fighting. the only potential in the future there is Indonesia and I just don't see that ever happening, they're China's problem not ours.
>>29379632
Shoulda invaded cuba and liberated them long ago
>>29375290
Mines are banned though :)
>>29380239
Anti personel mines are banned
>>29368042
Didn't the MEF drive it across the Iraqi dessert with them did they last the trip?
>>29380324
Yeah, and then we found out that IED's were a thing
>>29376835
>>29378185
ARMORED GUNBOATS! MADE OUT OF M113S BOLTED TOGETHER FOR MAXIMUM SURVIVABILITY
Still pushing your autism, kid? Perhaps if you create a youtube account and make a bunch of videos with bright yellow text on them, the Pentagon will listen and realize what a genius you are.
