How do such people exist? What drives them to create such d

>>29899717
Sparky has severe autism.

Believe it or not, he posted here a few times even. Notably he got BTFO when he tried to explain why the world needs to go back to casemated tank destroyers.

>>29899728
>Notably he got BTFO when he tried to explain why the world needs to go back to casemated tank destroyers.
What arguments did he brought?

(I personally think that casemated assault guns and tank destroyers MAY come back in case of conventional war between two industrialised countries, for economic reasons, but building them during peacetime is plain retarded)

He also said that battleships are the future of naval warfare.

>>29899717
why are M113s shit?
they're just steel boxes on tracks that haul dudes inside them like every other apc.

I don't see any other reason to keep them beyond things like ambulance, munitions carrier, or towing vehicles.

Even then I'm sure their are better vehicles that can be used for such roles. The problem of getting rid of the M113 is we built way to many of them.

>>29899745
>steel boxes

Anon, I...

File: AMPV variants.jpg (146KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1600x900px

For those who are unaware, the M113s are finally being replaced by AMPV (turret-less Bradleys) from BAE Systems.

Five variants and the numbers ordered.

General Purpose, 522
Medical Evacuation Vehicle, 790
Medical Treatment Vehicle, 216
Mortar Carrier Vehicle, 386
Mission Command, 993

File: g5.jpg (877KB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 4288x2848px

Speaking of the M113.

Do you think FFG's G5 will make any sales?

Loads of M113s that will eventually have to be replaced.

http://www.ffg-flensburg.de/en/light-vehicle-systems/pmmc-g5/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-GrAeTAuC4

>>29899728

Do you have an archive link. I would enjoy reading that.

>>29899915
It was a loooong time ago. When Shermanator and Trailsnake used to post all the time.

File: gavintrololo.jpg (212KB, 1000x863px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1000x863px

I miss sparkyposting

>>29899717
Oh my god this is the same kid who thought soldiers should carry SKS with polymer folding stocks in Iraq on top of the weapons they are already issued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt7Zdp2W7eY

His youtube page used to claim he was an officer in the Army and Marines special forces. Yes...this cracking voice little faggot kid thought people would believe it.

>>29899958
I own an sks, would i want it in Iraq or Afghanstain in some plastic molded stock hell know I want the AKM or type 56 AK or my issued M4 rifle, this guy can't be real the sks is good cheap semi auto rifle but not a war winner anymore, hell the M4 will beat it any old day

File: is that so.png (80KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 184x184px

>>29899958
>that video

>>29899958
Nah, he's a furry who the hell knows what he is apart from that. I don't think he claims once in his whole internet life who he is but he seems to be generally interested in military but also enormously fucking biased.

Outside of his M113 autism, he also says that:
>Battleships are a must for modern navy
while I agree that one or two heavily coastal-bombing oriented battleships are something US Navy would use - and they agree with me, until 1996 every time they've did something really serious, they always brought some Iowa class BB with them - the idea of them being more than a niche vessels meant to perform very specific offensive tasks nowadays is complete bullshit - so for instance Royal Navy which performed total 1 or 2 offensive actions since they've phased out Vanguard really doesn't need a battleship

He claims that there's a "mafia" that doesn't want battleships.
>VTOL is bullshit and will never work properly
VTOL airplanes will never reach similar performance as "ordinary" planes. This is true. However for their niche they're golden.
>Abrams doesn't have anti-material/anti-infantry round
It has that weird heat fragmentation round which granted, isn't half as good as HE-FRAG rounds Warsaw Pact tanks use but it's more than "nothing" it also has the same round but with added steel sort-of penetrator for bunker busting, which again I doubt is better than HESH but - hey - British love their HESH, they love it so much that they didn't go for smoothbore - there's no single HESH round in the market that can be fired from smoothbores, you have to work around that

And numerous others.

In all of it he's right from time to time(M1 Abrams should have M2 HMG as coaxial gun, majority of his failed X videos raise decent points) but when he's talking about anything related to US military it's almost obviously self-contradictionary bullshit.

>>29899814
If you want to drive Sparks into a frothing asshurt rage in one post just mention the AMPV and how it proves the M2 is clearly superior to the M113 in every way.
He hates the M2 with a rage hotter then the most salty kommando on the sun. He thinks "Pentagon Wars" was a real time filmed documentary.

>>29900058
I should have screencapped it but buddy he claimed he was an officer and said that junior officers were backstabbing career politicians. I seriously am troubled by the fact he has access to weapons. He's gonna be the next Adam Lasagna.

>>29900123
>I should have screencapped it but buddy he claimed he was an officer and said that junior officers were backstabbing career politicians.
Oh really?

Man, he's fucked up.

>>29900135
Yeah it was not too long after he posted the vulture gun video. Back then I never thought he'd remove it since he was so autistic and wouldn't let a little old thing like reality or mockery stop him.

He literally claimed over 20 years of service.

>>29900058
>so for instance Royal Navy which performed total 1 or 2 offensive actions since they've phased out Vanguard really doesn't need a battleship

IIRC, I've been told during the Falklands that RN's 4.5inch guns out-range the Argentine artillery. So navy happily sat back and shelled away.

>>29899728
Im starting to wonder if Sparky is Gliderfag. The crazy idea, the inability to accept that the concept is shit, he somehow knowing better than every military on the face of the earth and so on. All the signs are there

>>29900269

Gliderfag is more troll if anything, or rather several trolls.

>>29900269
>implying tactical gliders wouldn't be perfect for stealth SOF insertion

>>29899717
>ctrl-f "gavin" on that page
>427 results
Sparky pls.

>>29900252
Yes, but imagine if they'd shell them with 16 or even 14 inch guns instead. Such "bombardment BB" would also be largely resistant to Argenitnian missiles(which destroyed and damaged several RN vessels).
Those 2 characteristics are simply the key reason for my opinion on single one or two battleships being useful for highly interventionist country(like the US but unlike the Britain as Falklands are fairly alienated situation) as they are the only class of naval vessels that can both carry the cheap-to-operate and accurate(when compared to bombers) heavy artillery and armour able to withstand anti-ship missiles or enemy artillery(which nowadays rarely goes past 203mm).

And as I've said - it's not some kind of discovery - the US kept their battleships active until 1996 and USN is still expected to have plan for quick modernisation of BB-61 and 63 so it's not like I'm some kind of heretic by saying that they aren't totally useless pieces of junk. I'm not claiming that they're the single most important class of surface warships every navy should have though. That's the point.

>>29900058
>Abrams doesn't have anti-material/anti-infantry round

When I was enlisted we had the canister round, it fires a crapton of ballbearings and was to be used on infantry.

>>29900402
Canister round is pretty garbage tho so I didn't mention it. No point in using it when you have machinegun, especially since those ball-bearings have the power of 7,62 - it's coaxial gun.

Nowadays it also has that weird HEAT conversion and ordinary HE round though.

>>29899717
What a cute little vehicle.

File: M1028Canister.jpg (26KB, 645x132px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 645x132px

>>29900402
>ballbearings
kek
if by ballbearings you mean 1/2 inch tungsten balls
nothing like turning the gun into a 120mm shotgun

>>29900348
You make some interesting points however battleships have fairly major key weaknesses against aircraft, given an aircraft's operating range is quite a bit further than yon battleship can fire. Aircraft can also deliver munitions far more accurately, and they have more versatility. For instance a Bomber can slap a target with 500, 1000 or 5000 lb bombs as needed. A battleship meanwhile can only engage targets with its fourteen or sixteen inch guns or tomahawk cruise missiles.

As a result, it wouldn't be suitable for engaging targets in the kind of actions we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would only be useful in a major power on major power type engagement, but those major powers will have weapons capable of engaging and defeating battleship class ships.

File: Kelsey-Grammer[1].png (109KB, 270x270px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 270x270px

>ampv

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/armored-multipurpose-vehicle-ampv

lol

They're selling pure APC version of the Bradley.

>>29900513
>They're selling pure APC version of the Bradley.

And?

We've known this from the very beginning.

>>29900348
>>29900485

we've been over this. the battleship is an outdated concept.

>>29900555
That's what I'm saying. It's an okay bombardment platform but there are better tools that can deliver firepower more accurately, and surgical strikes is the name of the game these days.

>>29900348
>Such "bombardment BB" would also be largely resistant to Argenitnian missiles(which destroyed and damaged several RN vessels)
>armour able to withstand anti-ship missiles

If battleships during WW2 were sunk with AShMs, I see no problem with modern AShMs sinking battleships now and even if they do have a problem, there's very little in the way of a new warhead being developed to counter.

Only two actual kills happened with Exocets during the Falklands, one being an unarmed merchant ship, so we can really discount that.

the other, HMS Sheffield was a series of reasons:

1. Failed to detect because of interference because of communication equipment with her radar
2. Was not at general quarters, so readiness for damage control was severely reduced
3. The superstructure being partly aluminium and so burnt easily

It is generally agreed that the explosions from the missiles did not kill the ships. Fire did.

>>29900537
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars

>>29900584
>If battleships during WW2 were sunk with AShMs
Italian ones with bad damage control and electric wiring dont count desu.

But ww-2 battleships designs would have trouble in the modern age, alot of trouble.

>M113s are shit

Actually, they run very well, and compared to other vehicles are less of a maintenance/logistics nightmare. They are a solid platform for the missions that they do. I like how everyone incoherently screams about how they have no protection, when in reality they don't go into combat. The highest risk they run is doing CASEVAC missions, Mortars, Maintanence, FSO, and Command Post tracks don't go into the fight anyway. On that note, HMMWV's fill a lot of those rolls as well, and the M113 is better in most of them. It would be really nice to get a replacement though. But a lot of the hate is unwarranted.

Source: Drove one in Korea and Germany in a HBCT.

Expanding: >>29900584

I'll concede that in Department of the Navy report on the Falklands, they say that the Exocets used by the Argentines would not be able to kill the BB New Jeresy

>If any one of the 14 successful attacks against British ships had instead hit the Battleship NEW JERSEY, it could not have done sufficient damage to prevent continuing operations. The EXOCET missile that sank SHEFFIELD, for instance, would not have been able to penetrate the armor system of the NEW JERSEY.

Though I think they are being disingenuous, I think it is reasonable to believe that the radar and other sensors of the New Jersey would not be resistant to bombing, shrapnel or fire. Which means the Jersey would be effectively blind and almost useless.

The report goes on to emphasizing on "defense-in-depth" with damage control, hard and soft kill countermeasures and readiness, not uparmouring ships. You've also have to consider this report is also 36ish years old and AShMs have advanced a lot since then.

handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA133333

>>29900786

It put HMS Warspite in the docks for 9 months and even then she wasn't fully repaired.

>>29899745
>steel

>>29900850
I loved my M577.

Went up any hill or mountain in Iraq. Didn't get stuck in NTC sand, or JRTC mud(except that one time it threw a track in the mud), headroom and air conditioning.

then she was taken from me and replaced by a stryker. no ac, no headroom, gets stuck all the time, can't drive straight up a mountain

>>29900892
Yea, I've spent signficantly more time on the Abrams Tank. I have been there fixing thrown track a lot. The 113 I have never seen actually throw a track for something that wasn't retarded.

I got the pleasure of driving in a convoy down Korean highways at 40mph. Scary shit. But I loved it.

File: iowaskijumpdiagonal.jpg (52KB, 1293x521px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1293x521px

>Sparks
A man that thinks putting flight decks with ski jumps on a battleship is a lunatic.

>>29900973
Another great invention from the fragmented mind of Sparks is the BATTLE BOX.
Let's take the already under powered A-10 and let it haul a fucking shipping container with wings. NOTHING can go wrong here, trust me.

>>29899958
What the hell did I just watch?

File: BATTLEBOXattackglider19tn.jpg (100KB, 638x505px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 638x505px

>>29901009
Forgot pic

>>29901021
I think this kid plays too many vidya and thinks physics don't apply.

File: aerogavinbankingcompositetn.jpg (51KB, 781x580px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 781x580px

>>29901021
Sparks arguably greatest invention must be the AeroGavin however.
Prop powered M113s armed with sidewinders to go into contested airspace, blow up some MiGs, land and function as an APC

>>29901056
He is, quite simply, insane. Mad. Fucked in the head. And not in the "lol I'm so crazy" way, but the real deal.

>>29899958
How is that in any way better than carrying the weight/volume of that bastardized SKS in extra 5.56?

>>29901115
That's what scares me that he has access to firearms. He's the poster boy of why crazy people need to be put in funny farms. I'm all for my tax dollars going to that so we don't have so many crazies walking around.

>>29901021
Testing this in KSP, BRB.

>>29901145
People brought that up in the video and he's like "You carry it in your vehicle, duh!!" like every soldier is issued their own hummer.

Kid is seriously a wacko.

>>29901065
I bet that would spark his autism to a point he goes and does Sandy Vagina 2: Electric Bugaloo.

File: screenshot31.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901009
>>29901021
>>29901169
Gentlemen, I give you a shipping container slung beneath an A-10. Clearly, nothing could go wrong with this magnificent and extremely well thought out plan.

So who is sparky , is he kinda like blacktaildefence?

File: screenshot34.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901378
A lack of power from the A-10's engines alone did cause issues during take off.

File: screenshot35.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901391
Fortunately, the pilot survived.

>>29899717

former US Army 11c here

can confirm that 113 and 1064 is complete shit.

File: xung%20dot%20sac%20to%20o%20lebanon_GDQP_31[1].jpg (210KB, 1000x698px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1000x698px

Lebanese Guy here, thanks a lot for the M113 America : ^)

File: screenshot36.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901405
...for another second.

File: screenshot42.png (961KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 1920x1080px

>>29901418
Additional engines did allow the craft to leave the runway.

>>29900878
>You've also have to consider this report is also 36ish years old and AShMs have advanced a lot since then.
Except no ship nowadays actually has armoured belt and only basic protection. AShMs didn't evolve to pierce through armour and that's why there should be only one or two battleships in the world. To make investing in R&D for making "battleship killer" AShM retarded idea.

>>29901378
>mike sparks was right
Now do the AeroGavin.

File: screenshot44.png (1002KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 1920x1080px

>>29901444
But the immediate aftermath demonstrated a weakness for water-based landing.

>>29901444
Please tell me you guys made this, not him. I nearly am choking on my beer.

>>29901382
He IS blacktaildefence.

File: screenshot45.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901458
Finally, a rocket assisted launch was attempted.

>>29901459
I just hammered it together for fun.

>>29901456
I can't be bothered to make a tank and the Soviets tried it IRL but even they weren't this ambitiously retarded.

>>29901469
oh, did people actually listen to that autist?

File: screenshot48.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901482
This demonstrated excellent manoeuvrability though the test pilot later remarked "the fucking thing flies like a horizontal Girandola"

>>29901485
There are some who do. I watched few of his videos and the amount of jumping between short tons and long tons to make his point more "legit-looking" lol.

>>29901501
I haven't had a great laugh in a long time. Thank you anon, thank you for it.

File: screenshot50.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901501
After one of the longest test flights to date, the final results were sadly familiar. At this point, the program was defunded.

>>29901506
I must admit , that his videos on obscure things like the "Christmas bullet" were quite entertaining but the other stuff was just stat-comparrisons and gerenal dumb ramblings, i can see why noone likes him

>>29901454

Why are you reiterating my point?

You don't even need to invest in R&D for a "battleship killer" to kill a battleship, the ground work has already been done by TOWs.

Hell, I'm sure those "carrier killers" missiles would do the job.

Besides and as I've already said, but you seemed to ignore is that you need to damage or cripple the external sensors and the ship is blind. Turning it into a heavy hull with an engine,

>>29901539
*the ground work has already been done by TOWs.

In regard to piercing amour.

>>29901539
>Hell, I'm sure those "carrier killers" missiles would do the job.
Carriers aren't even close as well armoured as battleships though.
>Besides and as I've already said, but you seemed to ignore is that you need to damage or cripple the external sensors and the ship is blind. Turning it into a heavy hull with an engine,
That will happen to all warships.

>>29901514
Kek'd heartily

Mail this to sparks and with some luck he'll take it seriously enough to respond.
Hilarity will ensue.

>>29900417
You mean the round that is capable of turning an entire platoon into hamburger in one shot is worse than a few belts of suppressive fire?

File: screenshot51.png (894KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

894KB, 1920x1080px

>>29901514
Will the A-10 ever fulfil its true role as a cargo aircraft?

>>29901579
If you manage to catch the platoon relatively close to each other and all standing still...

File: screenshot56.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901583
Sadly, the world may never know.

>>29901562
>Carriers aren't even close as well armoured as battleships though.

This has to be a troll post. On the off chance I'm talking to a historically illiterate teen without the bandwidth to download any book about naval strategy written after 1950, you're a moron, get help.

I'm glad to see a replacement for the 113. It's been in service far too long. It did do its job well enough for a long time. It's light, easy to fix, and quick. Unfortunately it's lack of armour was its big downside, and in today's battlefields that's a necessity.

File: screenshot60.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>29901595
The end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmIY2n5WCxg

>>29901539
>Turning it into a heavy hull with an engine,
IIRC, the swedish RBS-15 has an air burst mode where it will seek out and detonate just above the superstructure among the antennas and radars.
Poke the eyes out.

>>29901612
Contact Sparks and say you have disproved his design with the latest SCIENCE and SIMULATIONS.
Knowing that autistic, there is much fun to be harvested.

>>29901562

>Carriers aren't even close as well armoured as battleships though

Doesn't matter, the BB would likely be still severely crippled or damaged.

>That will happen to all warships.

So what's the point of the armour then?

Nowadays warships can take a few hits (assuming nothing critical) and keep going. The armour does nothing, but turn the ship into a big heavy, floating hull.

>>29901613

My point exact.

>>29901639
Do you have contact details?

File: 145301674120.jpg (248KB, 1281x638px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1281x638px

>>29900058
>M1 Abrams should have M2 HMG as coaxial gun,
What if I told you many of them do? Now, a 7.62 machinegun is a better coax, as really it's more economical. More rounds in less space means more dead infantry. The .50 is only there for anti-sniper work and urban fighting.

Its use as the commander's MG was all that was really needed anyways.

>VTOL airplanes will never reach similar performance as "ordinary" planes. This is true. However for their niche they're golden.
It must also be said that their unique characteristics make for a VERY good CAS aircraft, as you can station it very close to the front lines. In Desert Storm, their average payload was greater than that of the F-18, and the same as the A-6. All this while having sortie time of only an hour, meaning you could conduct multiple sorties per day if needed.

>>29901639
>>29901662
nvm, found his channel. Putting together piss take video now.

>>29901662
>Do you have contact details
Can always try his old email dynmicpara(at)aol.com.
A few years old but he might still use it.
Their website might beat the Timecube one as the worst layout on the internet. It's a nightmare to find anything there.

File: WTFIsThisFoghornLeghorn.jpg (38KB, 588x437px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 588x437px

>>29899958
>That fuckin' video

>>29901065
This is just great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Rr03hqDec

>>29901660
>So what's the point of the armour then?
So it gets everything ripped but you can still get it back for repairs instead of 2km below the water level.

>>29901939

That's a maybe, at best.

Also assumes that more missiles aren't on the way.

>>29900618
A HBO comedy, what of it.

>>29900295
Except it can't extract. You're leaving stealth materiel behind.

>>29900058
He has a point that scramjet 16" rounds would be fucking amazing and cheaper to deploy than either carrier aircraft or missiles with comparable range, not to mention you can carry way more rounds than you can have in a VLS. The rest of his idea for refitting the Iowa-class is pretty shit, mostly because heavy steel armor is obsolete to the extreme. You can put a reactor on board and stick a flight deck on the back with ramps in a v formation off the sides, use the fuel space for jet fuel, planes, and shit, but it's still way worse than something made from scratch. As >>29900973 pointed out, ski-jumps are bad.


I don't think those ideas are ambitious enough. I'd go with a new Cruiser or Battleship/Carrier with 256 or 512 MJ railguns with a combined output comparable to the broadside muzzle energy output of an Iowa or Montana-class (106.67 MW, 142.22 MW). Well, at least a Tennessee-class (86 MW).

>>29900850
>when in reality they don't go into combat

Anymore, because of a lack of protection.

File: 1455736178806.jpg (132KB, 604x454px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 604x454px

>>29901927
>he calls its a light tank

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=180116&p=9349937
just googled mike sparks and holy shit, this guy is fucking ridiculous.

>>29900892
So you were in a M577 even though we switched to M1068's by Iraq 2 electric boogaloo?

Oh man I love Sparky

He's hilarious and also has the dogged determination to keep continuing to do...whatever it is you would classify what he's doing for years. Possibly decades.

>>29899717
>>29899728
>>29899742
>>29899745
mean while russia has a shitty vehicle called the MT-LB that is a universal tractor/carrier/infantry transporter that is successful at its basic purpose

Sparky trolling video complete, uploading now.

>>29902126
Do they stick em under a big wing en try to fly them?

>>29901927
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08L-OpA1IL0

>>29902035
It could have been a 1068. It was in the commo shop of my aviation bn. Instead of a LMTV with shelter. We got it in Kuwait on the first deployment. Then it went home with us and then back to Iraq. Where it was changed out for a Stryker half way through 2005.

Video ready for deployment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BU6pCxbAjA

>>29902279
10/10

File: 145986970.jpg (240KB, 586x1029px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 586x1029px

>>29902279
This is now /k/ history.
Thank you anon.

>>29902341
>Thank you anon.
My pleasure.

>>29902279
Someone send this to sparky

File: Comment.png (89KB, 1913x923px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1913x923px

>>29902408
Best I could do, I think he has to approve comments because it's not showing up in incognito browsing but there's a fair chance he'll see it.

>>29902439
god speed

>>29902279
>that soundtrack
fucking hell dude, awesome work.
Can you do one where you load the battlebox with kerbals, like a loaded APC?

>Sparks
I got in an internet slapfight with that guy, he was angry at Denmark or something because they bought CV9035 as IFVs instead of doubling down on the M113. According to him the M113 did everything better than the CV90, mobility, firepower and protection.
I really should have saved that conversation, it was pretty fun.

>>29902458
>Can you do one where you load the battlebox with kerbals, like a loaded APC?

That takes forever because you have to manually walk each kerbal into a cargo bay and I'm now behind with work. Sorry.

File: Yeah!.jpg (182KB, 800x999px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 800x999px

>>29902279

>>29902484
wut , in what way can anyone consider the m113 superior to the CV9035? Just how delusional is this guy?

>>29902504
Well, its lighter and.....no thats about it.

>>29902504
If you told him that the navy was looking to build a new missile cruiser, he would suggest a helicarrier with 4 Iowa style triple 16 inch turrets, with all main sections of the vessel built from arrangements of modular M113 components.

>>29902572
Also have a crew escape system in the form of floating battleboxes

>>29902572
>>29902563
So ,why does he adore the m113 so much , its objectively obsolete by modern standards and if surpassed by allmost everything we currently field, im genuinely curious why he loves is so much?

>>29902617
You can fetishize anything.

Anything.

>>29902572
It does make you wonder, what makes a person that attached to a vehicle? I mean, it must come from somewhere

This guy is pretty similar, his site is just harder to navigate. He also wants 7.62 miniguns and MK19s on Abrams

>>29902677
Durrr
http://www.g2mil.com/tankroofs.htm

>>29902643
I want to know what makes him shit on Abrams and Bradley so much.

>>29902704
Simple. They aren't the Battlebox.

>Why does Gliderfag hate helicopters?
>They aren't gliders.

Dont try to make sense of it, anon.

>>29902504
>Just how delusional is this guy?
IIRC it was about weight and swimming capability.
For firepower and protection there was "proprietary" development in armor as well as some turreted variant of the M113 with some large cannon.
Also "combat proven" was used more than once.
I just gave up somewhere along the line and just agreed with whatever he said. It ended up with how one would be able to link together M113s like a human centipede made out of Bv 206s, several vehicles long with each part fulfilling different roles like ambulance, engineering, supply transport and what have you. This monstrosity of a land train would roll in, form a wagon circle of days long gone and as such form an FOB in a matter of minutes?
Why a land train? Because of Mobility~
It's amazing what you can get by enabling him instead of arguing him.

>>29902751
>swimming capability
where the fuck did he intend on swimming them? In his head, is Denmark planning on attacking Norway again? Sweden? Pillage England 2: Viking Boogaloo?

Honestly, at some point it just becomes pure entertainment reading about his ideas

>>29902751
Wow , this guy's a lunatic.Ive been browsing his videos and he just spends time shitting on the Abrams , Bradley and stryker. His "Ideas" seem too far-fetched to be real, Did he actually serve in the military?

>>29902572
>4 Iowa style triple 16 inch turrets
Montana-class. Heavier armor and slower than Iowa-class as well. It was delayed because of Pearl Harbor and was cancelled when it was made clear that aircraft carriers were needed more, but Iowas were fast enough to keep up with Essex-class aircraft carriers.

>>29902806
Denmark has lots of islands.

>>29902853
Not so many that they at any point should be a consideration when choosing your next IFV :p . Its not Finland.

>>29902853
>Denmark has lots of islands
I bet a fair amount of whatever denmark pays with that no smorrebrod in the world could convince a dane to sit in an aluminum box while it tries to swim across the Great Belt. I'd feel unsafe in that thing if it tried to cross anything deeper than my waist.

>>29902931
Did some river crossing with an old M113A1 in Norway. Never have I been that aware of my surroundings
>Will my AG3 drown me?
>When must i change riverbank to swim towards?
>can i reach that rock?
>when did they last change that bilge pump?
>Why does Olaf have the new life west and I dont?
>this river...its glacier water, isn't it?
>I want to go home and eat gravlaks and sourcream
>fuck, I hate Olaf

File: 103-flyt.jpg (45KB, 924x639px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 924x639px

>>29902883
Strangely enough, neither finland or sweden chose to have amphibious capabilities in their IFVs.
That the Strv 103 could swim was pretty neat tho'

>>29902853
>Denmark has lots of islands.
and thusly Denmark has alot of small coastal boats
I mean shit, just stick an AMOS or a NEMO on a boat and you have a better option then an upgunned M113
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_n3MMF0NAY

>>29903015
>thusly

>>29903014
Same thing goes for us in Norway, but then again I dont think we plan much for an attack into our coastlines. Dem darn red commies would have been coming over dem mountains and tundra

>>29903014
Finland has the AMV that can swim
and the BMP-2 also can swim (they havent tought anyone to do it after the 90's)

>>29902260
I always thought your story was fishy.

File: 1455788463506.gif (327KB, 640x472px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 640x472px

>>29901927

That is without a shadow of a doubt the most retarded thing I have ever seen.

File: Ian Fleming.jpg (60KB, 790x1008px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 790x1008px

I can't believe we've had this entire thread without mentioning Sparky believes that Ian Fleming hid coded messages in the James Bond novels. There's a video here which shows what he looks like and his waltmeister decor.

http://www.amazon.com/James-Bond-Real-Political-Technological/dp/1257844903

https://youtu.be/GG8xfQkX7H4?t=43m19s

>>29903403
>https://youtu.be/GG8xfQkX7H4?t=43m19s [Embed]
This is him? The man? The legend? The one and only Sparky McGavinSparks?

>>29899717

Sparks is to ground vehicles what Sprey is to planes. Except that while Sprey occasionally makes valid points, Sparks is just straight-up insane.

>>29899745
METAL BOXES!!

File: belkaball.png (5KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 128x128px

>>29900973
He's not a lunatic, hes a Belkan.

>>29900618
It's funny how it has actually become a descriptive documentary. People that say "you think you really know better than the military" need a reality check. The military is notnone entity. Its competing interedts vying over budgets, especially during peacetime there is too little reason and too much peacocking.

>>29903224
his "combat reform" website in the description of that video is filled with even more endless autism if you feel like rustling yourself some more.
this kid is seriously nuts

>>29904114
Dude, before the internet, it used to be worse.

Back then autists (literal autists) didn't have a way to communicate with one another. So, they spent way too much time by themselves reading poorly written books about militaria, and compiling it into other poorly made books on military subjects.

Then they would hassle publishers till one felt sorry enough and do a publication run on the bare minimum, and manage to only sell to a few libraries.

I used to read some of those shitty books when I was a kid. "Dirty little secrets" comes to mind as one. They were real bad. Way worse than this:

http://www.combatreform.org/gunshield.htm

>>29904033
>It's funny how it has actually become a descriptive documentary

To people who do not know better.

Sparks only ever served in the National Guard, right?
He was a parachute packer or is it some other internet autist I'm thinking of?

Dnno why you faggots talk shit about the Battle Box, when troops literally do live in tents and get killed by mortars/rockets because of it

>>29903632
Holy hell, I just looked up his websites. He has a reddit group, a tripod site (remember those), and combatreform.org I'm wondering how far down this rabbit hole goes, but i also don't want to find out.

There is something not right about this guy.

So if Mike Sparks and Pierre Sprey were given free reign over the procurement of all equipment in the military, what would it look like?

>>29904471
>talk shit about the Battle Box
see >>29901021
A shipping container offers marginally more protection than a tent and there might be a use for containers as living quarters as long as you don't drop them in with fucking A-10s

>>29904615
Sweden would invade the US and install a puppet government.

File: 1417041880753.jpg (37KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 320x240px

>>29901927
what the actual fuck

>>29904570
remember what they say about gazing too long into the abyss...
let not the madness you witness begin to overtake you my anon friend

>>29904372
Oh god dirty little secrets was my standard shitter read in middle school.

File: 1462899417344.jpg (422KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1920x1080px

>>29904570
>>29904570

After a while, you start to get a sense of whether somebody is just being an idiot/jerk or if they are genuinely schizophrenic.

Sprey isn't mentally ill, he's just a jerk.

Sparks might be genuinely schizophrenic, like the Time Cube guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2UCqL5qyo

>>29904847
I'm telling you, give it a few years and he's gonna attack a day care because he thinks they're a front for something.

>>29899717
Sparky is a fucktard.

What else is new?

>>29904889
Still funny as hell. He's hilarious.

>>29903861
thank you Anon, my work has already been done

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO3MttgvHUY

>tfw my unit uses M113s
>WITH JET TURBINES

>>29899717
Are you aware that they cost 3.7 million a pop?

>>29905061
So, more than a turretless bradley, if wikipedia is to be believed.

Its always better to simplify supply lines.

when the AMPV replaces the M113, I hope surplus M113s become available

>>29904903
https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=combatreform.org

Is sparky even a real person? This is looking more and more like the work of a master troll, or even a Cabal of Trolls.

>>29902279
Beautiful Anon

>>29904570

>a reddit group

Whoah, back up. What's his reddit? Massive trolling potential there.

>>29905112
Simplying supply lines is ok

However just buying turrentless bradleys is probably idiotic
Would have been better to design a new unified platform like the russians did with armata.

File: I can't believe it's not a merkava.jpg (433KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1600x900px

>>29905389
That'd be an okay idea if the russian's had actually done a good job on it.
they probably got the idea for it from Arma 3

>>29905468
?
what is bad about what the russians have done? Other than perhaps technological capabilities they don't quite have.

>>29905480
The IFV's mediocre bad but their MBT has a blatant shot trap the size of a old tube tv.

By that logic, The states should just pump out a crap ton of m1a2 hulls and use half as actual tanks and hollow out the other half and stick CROWS on them or something.

>>29905508
No such thing as a shot trap

It would likely be stupid to do that with the abrams because its an old as fuck design that eats fuel & takes too much maintenance.

But yea, if the IFV's are going to be operating alongside MBT's then at least their frontal armor should be comparable since they will be facing the same threats.

File: Shottrap.png (812KB, 679x762px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 679x762px

>>29905537
If there's no shot trap on this thing then there better be some transparent armor over that hole in the turret above the driver because I'm almost positive that'd be loads easier to penetrate than the other side.

It's a promising idea but it needs to be done right. Russia's just playing catch up with the armata seeing as they spent half a century "refining" the same tank design instead of trying to replace and outdo it.

>>29905590
thats just some sheet metal cover over the turrent, that is not the actual armor
Probably no armor there at all actually, its an unmanned turrent so its very small.

>>29905537
>But yea, if the IFV's are going to be operating alongside MBT's then at least their frontal armor should be comparable since they will be facing the same threats.
I gotta say, this is a terrible idea. Sure, make an IFV have armor enough to protect against autocannons and ATGMs (that one needs APS and ERA), but armoring against cannons is just a waste. And what's worse is that any unit down to the battalion level which has IFVs likely has MBTs, which can take on the enemy's MBTs without being at a massive disadvantage like the IFVs are.

>>29905605
Regardless of whether or not it's manned. If that hole goes unfilled it's to be very appealing to HEAT rounds that will fuck up the autoloader and force the crew to expose themselves to try and fix it. The sand niggers this thing will probably go up against in the next couple years have some decent ATGMs at their disposal.

>>29905614
IFV's themselves are a pretty terrible idea

>>29904114
It's more than one autist, actually. There's a whole group of them.

File: DSC_4959.jpg (287KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1600x1062px

>>29905685

>IFV's themselves are a pretty terrible idea

???

I'm sorry, how is having a mobile vehicle that can carry infantry AND support them in battle "a terrible idea"?

>>29905653
?
Why do you think its a hole, idiot

>>29905726
Infantry are useless on a tank/artillery battlefield
So you've compromised the combat capability of your vehicle because you want it to carry 6 dismounts...

>>29905389
>Would have been better to design a new unified platform like the russians did with armata.

You mean like the Bradley then? Here is a list of vehicles that either directly use the Bradley hull or share a significant amount of parts with it.

M2A3 Bradley
M3A3 Bradley
M7A3 Bradley
AMPV general purpose
AMPV command vehicle
AMPV mortar carrier
AMPV medical evacuation
AMPV medical treatment
M109A7 Paladin
M992A3 ammo carrier
M270A1 MLRS
AAV-SU

>>29905743
Because the word for whatever it is has escaped me and calling it one sounds right.

It's an okay tank if you're just gonna be bullying third world countries that couldn't fight back if they wanted to but against comparable super powers it's just a lemon.

>>29905726
you are arguing with listerine-anon, don't waste your time

>>29905743

IFV's aren't meant for fighting against tanks. Sure, many IFV's have anti-tank missiles for self-defense, but that's a secondary weapon system.

>>29905685
Oh hey, its trailerfag in a Sparky thread. Now all we need is gliderfag and we'll have the Trifecta of Retardation.

>>29905138
Nope. Sold to the third world, police, or scrapped.

>>29905770
The structure you see is not armor, its just a sheet metal covering
The T-14 has just as much protection over any key components as an Abrams

>>29905759
Would have been better to design a new universal chassis which takes advantage of modern design elements like rubber tracks.

>>29905783

Right, the tow-missiles that IFV's have is not good for much more than

>Oh shit, we didn't think there'd be any tanks here!
>Gotta destroy it for before it gets us

IFV's aren't meant to be on the battleground with the tanks, they're meant to FOLLOW the tanks and take the fight onto a street that has no tanks.

>>29905908
>Gotta destroy it for before it gets us
Sounds like most cases of land-based anti-tank warfare.

File: Colon arrow right bracket.png (215KB, 575x576px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 575x576px

>>29905837
Regardless of the sheet metal, the bits in there must server some purpose of the gun system that looks fairly easy to hit.
It's almost like they know that in the next war they'll be the bad guys so they're putting a character flaw on the tank preemptively.

>>29905926

>On an Iraqi street
>Tanks are fighting 10 miles away
>house-to-house fighting
>Suddenly a T-72 comes out of nowhere
>Wasn't told about this shit

>>29905933
If it does serve a purpose then it is armored, or some redundant opticals that will alawys be exposed

>>29905908
>they're meant to FOLLOW the tanks
Which means in formation with them, not the next day

>and take the fight onto a street that has no tanks.
Then you get ambushed by a tank or IED or ATGM on the street.
There is ZERO situations where you would prefer an IFV over a tank, so whats their point?

>>29905960

Would you rather have the infantry sit ontop of tanks or follow behind them in the open? In that case a IED or an anti-tank missile/gun would kill them all as well and destroy the tank.

Quit moving the goalposts to try to make you "no-ifv" argument work

>>29905946

>Call in Apache
>T-72 gets hellfire
>Continue as before

Combined Arms is a wonderful thing

>>29905960

>There is ZERO situations where you would prefer an IFV over a tank,

I would prefer an IFV over a tank in a situation that calls for carrying troops, anon.

>>29905960
It can't be redundant if it's right next to the gun, A well placed HEAT round in that rather large area could totally fuck up either the gun or the auto loader. Either one of those would A. Render the tank useless B. force the crew to expose themselves to fire to repair it.

>>29906006

So waiting the 10 or so minutes it takes for a gunship to come and destroy the tank is better than having something there ready to destroy the tank on the spot?

>>29906023
Yes.

>>29906023

That's why many IFV's have the ability to fire anti-tank tank missiles.

>>29905994
The tank could tow a quick release trailer which the infantry rides in.

>>29906006

As someone that's actually been there in Iraq and shit his pants at seeing a T-72, operational, and in person I can tell you how this would really go.

>Strolling along in the humvee
>T-72 tank comes crashing through a street-side brick wall
>"Oh shit, tank tank tank!"
>little sandnigger turning a crank, turret's turning
>Try to get out of the humvee
>try to radio a cobra
>tank shoots into the middle of the convey and kills us

IFV's or amphibs with TOW missiles are the best answer to the rapid movement of troops and still provide protection against armor. Anyone who doesn't think IFV's are needed, has never served in a place where getting your shit kicked in by a T-72 tank in the absence of a gunship or M1 was a real possibility

File: 1462892674932.png (344KB, 340x523px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 340x523px

>>29906083

Why not just use an IFV to carry the troops instead?

>>29906146

I agree.

>>29906150
Why not bring an extra tank with a trailer instead animeposter?

>>29906146

Not to mention, an RPD would just as easily rip through a column of troops walking down a street or a column of humvees or basically anything with less armor than a bradley or an amphib

>>29906164

Because I don't thinking that tanks hauling troop trailers is actually a real thing. Has anybody ever actually done that? If not, then they probably had a very good reason for not doing it.

>>29906164

Having fun trying to do a zero-degree turn on a street while your carrying around a trailer

>>29905837
>The T-14 has just as much protection over any key components as an Abrams

Is that why its gun can be disabled by an autocannon, possibly even an HMG with AP?

>Would have been better to design a new universal chassis which takes advantage of modern design elements like rubber tracks.

Band tracks simply require switching roadwheels, but the economics advantages of band tracks are outweighed by the functional disadvantages if you plan on actually seeing combat.

>>29906146

AND the best case scenario is that some of you are able to get into a building, but have fun making it long enough to radio in the tank's position while the tank is unloading its coax or turret mounted machine gun or (assuming the the religion-of-peace'er had a bad day) unloads a fucking tank round into the building

>>29906146
>>29906168
Or you know
Buy some 40 ton medium tank for these sorts of things....
But no, we need bradley's because thats all the US has for it, so its all that is usable..

>>29906185
Dump the trailer and let the dismounts actually dismount before going down the street...

>>29906210

The entire point of a tank is to go where the fighting is most intense and soak up massive damage.

Why would you want to attach your troops directly to a beast that is meant to draw fire?

>>29906210

What's wrong with the Bradley?

>>29900123
>>29904444
From what I understand, Sparky's story is as follows:
>Be Mike Sparks
>Want to be a HARDCORE WARFIGHTER
>Enlist in the Marines, take officer test
>Score is shit, Marines offer you a supply job
>Refuse, because you're a BADASS WARFIGHTER
>Marines kick you out, because they aren't lacking for supply officers
>Go to the Army Reserve instead
>Join up, become a Second LT because the reserves are desperate
>Join a parachute rigger unit
>???
>Leave, never passing the rank of Second LT
>Spew your insane ideas and M113 fetish on the internet

>>29906182
It's not, because it's a retarded idea. That does not stop listerine from ignoring the various deal killers that anons have listed in his attempts to argue for it.

>>29906238
>What's wrong with the Bradley?

It makes his pet idea's irrelevant, so he hates it.

File: screenshot70.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

I made it fly, however, it's not so much a winged container slung under an A-10 as it is an aircraft in its own right propelled by 4 speculatively specced turbo-ramjets.

>>29906210

First off dickwad, during an invasion out of a country WITH THE MOST TANKS IN THE MIDDLE EAST it's not exactly practical to detach individual tanks so they can casually stroll down a street that may or may not have a tank when there's a battlefield full of tanks miles away.

Second, it's better and more economic to have an IFV or amphib equipped to take small arms fire that can transport troops and potentially destroy tanks than force troops to huff it out with humvees and just anti-tank missiles or especially detach individual tanks. On tight streets M1 tanks are not exactly in their element.

File: screenshot76.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>29906294
It also has an alarming habit of slicing the nose clean off the front of the A10 on separation. Also, the rockets required to ensure the (partial) survival of the A-10 cause it to spin straight into the ground in a fashion that no amount of armour could save it from.

Other than that, it's a 10/10 design.

Well, it's been fun, I'm off to bed.

>>29906238
>Why would you want to attach your troops directly to a beast that is meant to draw fire?
Because tanks are sitting ducks without infantry support in an urban environment.

>>29906294
What's the point of the A-10 on top again?

>>29906308

Also let's not forget the ever favorite the issue that's plagued troops hiding behind tanks

>Tank tank tank!
>troops get out of this rediculous trailer
>tank backs up due to heavy fire
>runs down troops trying to leave

>>29906337
>What's the point of the A-10 on top again?
see:
>>29901021

It's a design requirement specified by someone who's understanding of aeronautical engineering is on a par with a Boeing employee who's had their entire brain removed and replaced with a finely blended MRE.

File: black man.jpg (57KB, 565x500px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 565x500px

>>29906337

So then don't send tanks into an urban environment.

Send IFV instead.

>>29906238
Whats wrong with the bradley is the same thing thats wrong with every IFV

They are death traps vs any modern force.

The TOW itself is actually extremely dated, has to be manually guided still.

>The entire point of a tank is to go where the fighting is most intense and soak up massive damage.
This is some sort of "I can't think outside doctrine" mindset... If you simply had MORE TANKS, then you lose nothing using them in places where you might have used lighter vehicles.

Lead tanks will not be carrying trailers, obviously they need to be free to maneuver.
The tanks behind them replaced M113's/Bradleys, will however be carrying trailers.

>>29906374

So basically your idea is to detach tanks from arena's they're potentially needed so they can navigate city streets with ground troops? And the replacement idea instead of an IFV is to have TWO tanks, one with a trailer, ON A CITY STREET?

Let's ignore the cost-to-benefit analysis of this, or its potentially negative affects on distance tank battles but let me ask you one question.

Are you fucking retarded?

>>29906374

The US already has more tanks than it knows what to do with. There is no problem with not having enough tanks.

>>29906418

So basically, your solution is to just clumsy, big tanks on tight streets when an IFV or amphib could accomplish the same goal for a cheaper price, hold more troops than your stupid fucking trailer idea, and be more maneuverable?

>>29906435

You are mistaking me for him, my friend.

He said that the US needs more tanks.

I said "no, not really."

I have already said that urban environments are a sub-optimal environment for tanks, and that it makes much more sense to use IFV's in such environments.

>>29899717
Fucking Sparks is the roach that won't die.

>>29906405
Whats an IFV going to do if its ambushed by modern ATGM's or a modern tank or even another IFV?
Nothing, so thats 10 people dead

Which is why you need to bring a tank to a tank fight.
There is no magic terrain more suitable for IFV's than tanks.
You also seem to believe IFV's are cheaper than tanks, which is completely untrue.

>>29906340
Have multiple doors on the side of the trailer, its not an IFV/APC, so you don't have to dismount at the back.

There should be shields that swing out of the sides of the trailer to provide cover for troops jumping out.

As well, why would the enemy tanks be shooting at the trailer when there is a lethal threat right in front of it.

>>29906515

The worst part of this idea is that it makes the tank into a babysitter for grunts Why would we do that when we already have IFV's, an entire class of vehicle that exists solely to act as babysitter for grunts.

>>29906481
An vehicle with infantry is far less likely to be ambushed than a vehicle without.

>>29906374
>They are death traps vs any modern force.
Incorrect. They can kill anything the enemy has bar an MBT in a stand up fight. They're generally protected against everything up to that point as well. They have the POSSIBILITY of killing an MBT if they get the drop on it. And that is as an infantry carrier.

They provide effective protection and fire support for the infantry, while enabling them to keep up with the tanks, who need infantry support. More tanks is not an option, they need infantry right there with them. For example, see the German armored division reorganization which occurred in between the invasion of France and the invasion of Russia. They went from a tank heavy force to a balanced force, all because they discovered that they needed sufficient infantry support which could keep up with their tanks. In the modern environment, APCs cannot do so, as they would easily get destroyed by any IFVs. If they drop off their infantry far enough back that they don't expose themselves, the infantry can't keep up with the tanks. And when the infantry gets to the fight, they're outgunned because the enemy has IFVs in addition to their tanks.

See how this works?

>>29906481

The Bradley weighs less than half what an Abrams weighs. That directly translates into a much smaller logistical foot-print.

>>29906590
>>29906584

>More tanks is not an option, they need infantry right there with them.
Which is why I recommend trailers.
A force with 2x Tanks + infantry Trailers would be superior to a "balanced" force with Tanks + IFV's.

>>29906561
>Reeee i'm not a babysitter, fucking grunts reeeee

>>29906645
How well does a tank-towed trailer traverse rough terrain?

>>29906596
No, weight does not _directly_ translate into logistical footprint

>>29906481
>Whats an IFV going to do if its ambushed by modern ATGM's or a modern tank or even another IFV?
Its armor might keep it safe. That includes APS or ERA. Then it fights back against the threat, possibly killing it. And I guarantee you that not all people inside the IFV would die. Not even most of them.

Further, consider how this would be any different with a tank. In most situations where the IFV would get destroyed, the tank would as well. And none of this matters because a tank doesn't carry the infantry it needs to support itself!

>Which is why you need to bring a tank to a tank fight.
And you do. IFVs aren't used by themselves, they're used in conjunction with tanks.

>There is no magic terrain more suitable for IFV's than tanks.
There is terrain which makes IFVs more effective against armor than others.

>You also seem to believe IFV's are cheaper than tanks, which is completely untrue.
Is this considering the Bradley costs less than half of what the Abrams does?

Your problem is thinking you can replace IFVs 1:1 for tanks. You can't. You still need infantry to support your armor. The choice is between unarmored transportation, armored transportation that is unsuitable for a fight, and armored transportation that is suitable for a fight. Take your pick.

>>29906645

>I live in my mom's basement and like to play with old soviet surplus
>I know more than people who actually served about what's better for them!

>>29906671

Not directly, but it is a pretty good indicator. The heavier the vehicle, the more fuel it needs.

>>29906645
The trailers are a shitty idea. A very shitty idea. If you so desperately want to put infantry on tanks, have them ride on top. That way you don't have to lug a trailer behind you and lose a shitload of maneuverability.

>>29904426
you tell me with a straight face, that it is not a perfect description of how the F-35 program went and is still going.

>>29906701
And do remember that the Soviets, the people who used tankodesantniki extensively, were among the first people to adopt fully armored troop transportation. During the Cold War, except for a few small units, every infantryman was mounted on an APC or an IFV, not on tanks. You know why? The Soviets learned that the guys on top of the tanks took heavy casualties due to a completely exposed position and lack of armor.

>>29906671
Weight is a major factor of a vehicles logistical footprint.

>>29906739

It's not a perfect description of how the F-35 program went and is still going.

>>29906739
It is not a perfect description of how the F-35 program went and is still going. The fact that you even imply such a thing show how little you actually know about the F-35.

File: MAIN_p1650466[1].jpg (84KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 752x423px

>>29906667
>>29906701
A tracked trailer shouldn't have major problems with rough terrain.
Not every tank would be so equipped anyways, lead vehicles would be unencumbered.

>>29906748
eh
The point of giving everyone APC's was to survive & fight on a nuclear battlefield, aka needing NBC protection.

>>29906858
A tracked trailer would greatly limit a tanks ability to maneuver, the cargo trailer in your picture only works because both wheels are on swivels.

>>29906858
>The point of giving everyone APC's was to survive & fight on a nuclear battlefield

APC's existed in WW2, everyone was 'given' an APC because experience showed the value of having them.

File: bradley-4.jpg (30KB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x286px

>>29906858

>A tracked trailer shouldn't have major problems with rough terrain.

Oh so the trailer has tracks now?

Okay, so here me out.

Why not take the tracked trailer and give its own engine so it can move without being pulled by a tank?

And while we're at it, why not stick a nice 25/30 mm autocannon on top so it has some firepower to add to the equation? Perhaps even give it the ability to launch anti-tank missiles in case it happens to encounter a tank on its own.

Finally, pack on some extra armor that the troops inside are better protected.

And voila. This is the final result.

>>29906950
your logic does not defeat the anons autism. sadly you can never defeat autism

>>29906950
So now you carry less men, need a 3 man crew, paid about the same as what you would for a tank, and will end up with less tanks overall since these IFV's need to be supplied now.

Wouldn't basing the IFV on a tank chassis be a good thing? They're already heavily armored, designed to resist mines and move fairly quickly. Plus you can bust through walls and such easier. Just arm it with a minigun and some TOW missiles, and you're set.

I'd rather be in something designed to be shot at by actual tanks than something that will get torn to bits by a 30mm cannon.
And you'll save costs by not needing to make a different production line.

>>29906902
The only thing the trailer does is force a certain turning radius on the tank. Or make them do 3 point turns

>>29906989

All of those trade-offs are more than worth it considering that the alternative is utter retardation.

>>29906989
>So now you carry less men,

False.

>need a 3 man crew

Which is countered by having another armed vehicle.

>paid about the same as what you would for a tank

False.

>and will end up with less tanks overall since these IFV's need to be supplied now.

Conversely having a tank drag a trailer would increase its logistical burden.

>>29906858
>>29906950
It's my first time on /k/ and if that's the way discussions shake out around here, I'm definitely staying.

>>29907043
>the only thing a trailer would do is remove one of the primary advantages tracks have over wheels

Have fun in tight spaces.

File: oh boy.png (112KB, 863x792px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 863x792px

>>29907061

File: kangaroo.jpg (25KB, 550x314px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 550x314px

>>29907012
Pretty sure the Aussies did this in WWII,
I'm also pretty sure that they would have preferred a designated IFV, though.

>>29899717
LOOK M113S, M113S, OUR ENEMEHS HIDE IN METUHL BAWKSES THE COWARDS THE FEWLS

WE... WE SHOULD TAKE AWAY THEIR METUHL BAWKSES

>>29901021
Any RC lads out there who can bother to make america great again in scale form?

File: 1459560216680.jpg (116KB, 550x541px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 550x541px

>>29901021

This poses so many questions but offers few answers.

>>29899958
Holy fucking shit I cringed so hard

>>29901927
The best part is the one picture toward the beginning of the flying Christie tank is from My Tank Is Fight! which is an entire book devoted to asinine weapon ideas of WWII.

>>29907101
After looking through Wikipedia, you're right!
It turns out that Israel also had the same idea, and designed a heavily armored APC out of a Merkava chassis. I just don't get how that's not more popular, compared to a Bradley or LAV. And hey, those aussies in your pic look pretty happy about the whole thing.
>>29901021
What does an RC mecha-trump have to do with this?

>>29907053
>False.
Bradley only carries 6 men

>Which is countered by having another armed vehicle.
Men are a cost & a finite quantity, you use them up crewing shitty IFV's or APC's, then you don't have them for more tanks.

>False.
The only reason the Bradley is cheap is because its quite old
A modern IFV is not going to be cheaper than a modern tank. Especially as protection requirements will keep going up.

>Conversely having a tank drag a trailer would increase its logistical burden.
If logistical burden was a serious concern, then the Abrams would have a diesel engine
Dragging a trailer is nothing compared to another heavy tracked vehicle.

>>29907046
It's not retarded, you just won't properly consider it

>>29907329

>you just won't properly consider it

I feel confident in my assertions because apparently every military on the planet agrees that trailers on tanks doesn't make sense or else somebody would have done it already.

It just makes more sense to have to troop carrier be an independent vehicle, with the ability to move on its own, and with a measure of firepower to bring to the table.

>>29907359
I think a few tanks with flamethrowers used trailers for the fuel in World war 2, but they sure as fuck didn't have infantry in/on them.

>Infantry riding on tanks
"This is ok in a pinch"

>Tanks pulling trailers armored vs small arms, which they could dump any time they need to
"Absolutely retarded idea!"

I don't get it, are you people incapable of thinking outside the box?

>>29907465

Because if you're going to create an armored trailer to carry infantry, then you might as well give it an engine so it can move on its own, and stick on an auto-cannon on top so that it can kill stuff. At that point you either call it an APC or stick on additional armor and then call it an IFV.

>>29907501
You implying that shit is free? You implying that crews or supplies itself?

Then we are right back in the same spot.

>>29907546

It's much less expensive than forcing grunts to hook up with an MBT anytime they want to go somewhere.

>>29907585
You still need that MBT for a real fight anyways.

>>29907329
>Bradley only carries 6 men

And you could claim your nonexistent trailer carries 50 men.

>Men are a cost & a finite quantity, you use them up crewing shitty IFV's or APC's, then you don't have them for more tanks.

Tanks do not carry infantry, so your comparison is meaningless.

>A modern IFV is not going to be cheaper than a modern tank. Especially as protection requirements will keep going up.

So you are acknowledging an IFV can be as heavily armored as as tank?

>If logistical burden was a serious concern, then the Abrams would have a diesel engine

Fuel is not the only element of logistics.

>Dragging a trailer is nothing compared to another heavy tracked vehicle.

Oh, your trailer is unarmored? Better hope you do not run across any IED's, mines or have artillery land near you.

>It's not retarded, you just won't properly consider it

When you say we 'won't properly consider it' what you are actually saying is 'stop analyzing my proposals and take them at my word'.

>>29907599
You still need that MBT + infantry + artillery + air support etc. etc. etc. for a real fight anyways.

>>29907599

So then send the MBT off to go fight "the real fight" without the burden of needing to babysit grunts. Let the IFV babysit the grunts instead. You know, like it is designed to do.

>>29907606
>So you are acknowledging an IFV can be as heavily armored as as tank?

No
It will always have less for the fundamental reason of having far more necessary internal volume

>Fuel is not the only element of logistics.
It's the bulk of it, in tonnage.

Protection against IED's/shrapnel/small arms is not particularly heavy to add.

IFV's are designed around handling direct fire, bradley is armored vs 30mm, future IFV's will have higher requirements.

>>29900123

No way. This faggotron is actually in a position of power?

Guys hear me out...

Hear me out guys... what if...

WHAT IF we mix an A-10 warthog, a shipping container, and a motorized tracked trailer?

Guys...

>>29907677
I know you're just joking, but BRRRT wont work on the ground. Its designed to saw through stuff, but on land it can't strafe like an A-10
>>29907673
Nah, he;s just another faggot.

>>29907677

What about a fusion of the Apache with an Iowa-class battleship?

It will hover over the battlefield, supporting troops with directed fire from its 16-in guns.

I have submitted this to the Pentagon but the anti-battleship/chopper mafia keeps blocking it.

>>29904570
>reddit group, a tripod site
Links?

>>29906858
>A tracked trailer shouldn't have major problems with rough terrain.
Oh yes they would. And even if they could, imagine how shitty it would be to ride inside. And turning radius is kind of important. Attaching a trailer to a tank removes an important aspect of tanks- maneuverability. Can you imagine trying to perform a reaction to contact with tat thing back there? Let alone how shitty trying to drag unpowered tracks would be?

>Not every tank would be so equipped anyways, lead vehicles would be unencumbered.
But here's the thing- experience has shown that you want a 1:1 infantry to tank mix within an armored unit. Not only that, but really, you're better off with a trailer with its own engine, so the infantry can actually catch back up to tanks. Otherwise, the tanks will leave them in the dust. Not to mention the massive shitfest mounting and dismounting would be.

Before this continues, let me ask you something: have you ever driven with a trailer before? If so, then you'd quickly realize why this is a bad idea.

>The point of giving everyone APC's was to survive & fight on a nuclear battlefield, aka needing NBC protection.
Only partially. The real purpose was to keep mobility while having protection from threats. Imagine how cut up tankodesantniki would get up if they were caught up in an artillery barrage.

>>29905759
Isn't the M6 Linebacker also a Bradley hull variant?

>>29907329
>Bradley only carries 6 men
As opposed to what? The hypothetical trailer couldn't carry that many more without being a MASSIVE problem.

>Men are a cost & a finite quantity, you use them up crewing shitty IFV's or APC's, then you don't have them for more tanks.
Or you could have them crew IFVs, because as it turns out, and was mentioned upthread, IFVs are cheaper than tanks.

>If logistical burden was a serious concern, then the Abrams would have a diesel engine
It's tradeoffs, anon. That was acceptable for the advantages the turbine engine provided

>Dragging a trailer is nothing compared to another heavy tracked vehicle.
Not really no.

>It's not retarded, you just won't properly consider it
Yes, it's patently retarded, and we have considered it and judged it to be so. The fact that you can even consider this proves you've never had to drive anything with a trailer attached in your life.

>>29907660
>IFV's are designed around handling direct fire, bradley is armored vs 30mm, future IFV's will have higher requirements.
Like what? Autocannons peak at a certain point- either you'd be better off using a smaller gun with more ammunition or a full sized cannon with more power.

>>29906989
So then what trailer anon REALLY wants is a non-shitty IFV, not a trailer?

>why don't we use this absolutely retarded method of transporting troops that requires a tank to tow
>why don't we use this absolutely retarded method of transporting troops that requires a plane to tow
Are gliderfag and trailerfag one and the same? I've never seen them in the same thread.

>>29900318
I never understood the opposition to calling the M113 a Gavin. We do similar things with other equipment and nobody bats an eye. The M60 isn't a Patton, but we call it one. The SR-71 isn't actually designated the Blackbird, but we cal it that, too.

File: m113, despite shit posting, i can't bring myself to call it a gavin.jpg (2MB, 2940x1915px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2940x1915px

Greatest fighting device on Earth.

If America had these in 1945, we could have taken Moscow and Beijing.

>>29908229
It's because the Gavin name was NEVER used by the people who used it. Nor was it particularly common in civilian usage either.

>>29908236
To be honest, having an M113 at that point in time would have been a fairly significant capability jump.

>>29908229
Because in this case it never actually caught on, it's just a forced meme by a bunch of autists.

File: M113IStheGavin.jpg (117KB, 672x885px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 672x885px

>>29908292
>It's because the Gavin name was NEVER used by the people who used it. Nor was it particularly common in civilian usage either.

>>29908390
>In more than 30 years working in the defense industry, I have never, never heard anybody use the name "Gavin" for the M-113. Not in the U.S. nor in any of the many countries that use the vehicle. Not in the military forces, not in the companies that build and equip it, not in the groups that retrofit and repair it. This usage appears not only to be "unofficial", it is entirely fictional and I believe that you may have been the victim of a hoax or deliberate disinformation.

>>29908390
That's one of Sparky's minions.

>>29908445
Also apparently one of Trump's advisors on foreign policy. Used to be Inspector General of the DoD, meaning he didn't know jack shit, and apparently an executive at Blackwater.

>>29908489
Oh shit, I think I've seen him in a documentary.

Weird guy, kept going on about the Napoleonic code because the reporter was French.

Is this the next parkourdude?

>>29908587
No, parkourdude was the next Sparky.

>>29908439
>entirely fictional
>decades of service
>puts a dad in the model name

So either you're both full of shit, or the letter is legit.

File: beagle discovers mike sparks.png (271KB, 597x990px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 597x990px

Even my XCOM streamer is aware of the Sparks.

What a world we live in.

>>29901769
anti sniper work and urban fight-

As a 19K who works with one of these would disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS
That fifty is fucking worthless in distance compared to the bradley's 25mm. Its neat in urban combat but what it makes its money on is the fact that its mounted on a system that has thermal imaging. That extra eye without exposing yourself is fucking money.

File: 1340489706963.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>29905743
And tanks are fucking stupid in an battle where aircraft the bust tanks 30,000 feet in the air before the tank/artillery guys can even scratch their asses.

What's your fucking point with this circular logic? Heard of combined arms? Heard of tanks trying to deal with mass infantry with ATGM and hand held ATs? What is Syria?

You are dumb for even thinking IFVs have no place in the modern battlefield. Let's fucking throw all our rucks and sustainment in a softshell humvee that can carry six guys max or fucking foot slog it once you've been 'air-dropped'.

Come back when you have to duck behind a M1 with its huge rear exhaust because you didn't have a decent metal box covering you.

Better yet, look at fucking 2-75th and why do they have fucking Strykers and a 30mm varient they just recently adopted to go with their armored companies.

>Nah, I think I know better then people who have gotten shot before when I never had to shoot a weapon at another human being with a gun in anger before.

>>29907853
>The hypothetical trailer couldn't carry that many more without being a MASSIVE problem.

How so? The trailer itself is not meant to go into combat, and since its unpowered it won't, so it doesn't need to be armored vs ATGM's/autocannons.

>The fact that you can even consider this proves you've never had to drive anything with a trailer attached in your life.
Driving a tank around a battlefield is a bit different than maneuvering in streets or parking lots as a civilian.

>>29907803
>let me ask you something: have you ever driven with a trailer before? If so, then you'd quickly realize why this is a bad idea.
Most of this is due to a lack of practice & experience, once you do have that know how its quite doable.
You would generally have a surplus of tanks over the trailers, so that the tanks not engaged in combat can go back to pick up the dumped trailers.

>>29908714
Considering the guy is an idiot lawyer, no,I don't think the guy knows what he's talking about. It contradicts what others have stated.

>>29909108
>Heard of tanks trying to deal with mass infantry with ATGM and hand held ATs?

APS literally hard counters man portable ATGM's
Why do you believe IFV's are somewhat less vulnerable to ATGM's or more suited to anti-infantry work?
It would take little work for some air bursting frag round to be produced for the Abrams.

You think any of those stryker brigades would say no to an armored battalion?

>where aircraft the bust tanks 30,000 feet in the air before the tank/artillery guys can even scratch their asses.
Let me tell you about my "Turn tanks into SPAAG's" idea

>>29909041
We're not talking about the CROWS, we're talking about the one which is sometimes coaxially mounted on top of the cannon, as can be seen in that picture. That one's there in case you need a tad more range or penetrating power than the M240, but using the cannon would be inadvisable for some reason.

>>29904372
>gunshield
Did.. did he play Army of Two and decide that the shields on the end of a weapon were a good idea?

>>29909145
>How so? The trailer itself is not meant to go into combat
AND HERE IS THE ISSUE. You want a trailer that you can just ditch and then fight with out. The only problem here- YOU HAVE LEFT YOUR INFANTRY BEHIND. This is specifically what APCs and IFVs are there to avoid.

If you want it large enough to carry a full squad, it's going to be a massive trailer. We're talking the rear 3/4ths of a M113. This is not easy to maneuver in the slightest.

>Driving a tank around a battlefield is a bit different than maneuvering in streets or parking lots as a civilian.
First off, most of the actual driving of the tank is actually going to be almost exactly like that, except much worse, because it's a giant trailer mounted on a tank. Trying to use it on the battlefield, where you've got weird gradients and bumps? Flat out suicidal.

>Most of this is due to a lack of practice & experience, once you do have that know how its quite doable.
So no, you've never driven with a trailer before.

>You would generally have a surplus of tanks over the trailers, so that the tanks not engaged in combat can go back to pick up the dumped trailers.
Or you could have the tanks at the front and have the rear line tanks actually carry the infantry. And they fight with them too! Wow, how hard was this to think up?

Look, you can't have infinite tanks like what you want. That's not logistically feasible, not to mention how much more expensive to be than just using a self driving vehicle, which can keep up with the tanks and not cause massive congestion issues- WHICH ARE ACTUALLY A HUGE DEAL IN MILITARY OPERATIONS.

>>29909248
Yes I have driven with a trailer before. The only tricky thing is backing up

What if.... the IFV's had trailers

>The only problem here- YOU HAVE LEFT YOUR INFANTRY BEHIND.
When you are done with combat, you pick them back up. Same as APC's or IFV's have to do.

>>29909203
...And this dude did not even bother to to read what I was talking about...

No where did I say IFV is more survivable against AT, or that the IFV are more suited to anti-personnel operations.

Do you understand area denial? Do you know what the job of the infantry is?

What is the IFV carrying? Do you know how an armored brigade is structured?

In fact, do you even know how battles are fucking fought?

>>29909205
...You do realize every single m1 currently deployed has the CROWS right..? And that having a gun fixed to that turret is dumb as fuck when you have a system that literally turns in 360 degrees?

>>29909278
>Yes I have driven with a trailer before. The only tricky thing is backing up
Not to mention turning radii are fucked, the fact that wind becomes a major factor, and that trying to drive with a group of people becomes a royal pain in the ass.

>What if.... the IFV's had trailers
It'd still be retarded. The only use for the trailers is carrying extra supplies when you're on a road march.

>When you are done with combat, you pick them back up.
That's the problem. You can't do it when you're done with combat, you need to maneuver them in the MIDST of combat. That's how the infantry keeps up with the tanks. For that to happen, they need dedicated transports, which can maneuver on the field of battle as well as protect their occupants from fire. Your proposal does none of this.

>>29909278
Various nations spent years trying to get tank trailers to work, they ranged from "complete shit" to "mostly shit".

>>29902931
>>29902993
>>29903014
Not even switzerland has amphibious APCs aside from the M113 (which we never let swim)
Even our Piranha could be amphibious but we didn't get that option. and we have a fuck ton of rivers, yet we still rely on assault bridges and our engineers

>>29909354
Have you not heard what I'm saying? We aren't talking about CROWS. I'm well aware of its utilities, but they aren't the topic of conversation. Please look at the picture you originally responded to. Look at the main gun. Do you notice that there's a M2 mounted on the gun itself, separate from the one the commander uses? That's what we're talking about. Earlier I mentioned why it was mounted there. CROWS is in general a good system, but it's controlled by the commander, not the gunner, and thusly suffers a few negatives from being completely disconnected from the optics and FCS the gunner has.

>>29907061
It isn't, the second, sensible post usually isn't there.

>>29905138
>>29905806
the swiss surplus M113 IFVs (fromerly used by our Panzergrenadiers) were scrapped even though there are still less armored versions of it in service (like the combat engineer and regular engineer version) and on top of that in case of war we wouldn't even have enough IFVs to equip all of our armored battalions

File: 1462650505439.jpg (197KB, 1670x1743px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1670x1743px

>make thread about autist with retarded ideas
>make fun of retarded ideas, try to contact autist to extract more kek
>suddenly a real live autist with retarded ideas appears in this very thread
>mfw
Truly a magical place

>>29909518
>CROWS is in general a good system, but it's controlled by the commander, not the gunner, and thusly suffers a few negatives from being completely disconnected from the optics and FCS the gunner has.

I didn't actually read the article as to why the CROWS will be removed from M1A2s, but is this the actual reasoning? Kinda astounds me that something as simple as making a CIV with gun and able to communicate with the gunner for the Abrams isn't a thing.