Infantry Fighting Vehicles

>>31182773
No idea, the Puma is probably a better vehicle all around, but its also alot more expensive (something like twice the cost?).

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I love the CV90. I'm in the swedish army as mechanized infantry so i ride with them bad boys. I don't really have anything to compare it to, but i can say from personal experience it's a fucking beast. 40mm autocannon, 7.62 coax and 7 soldiers riding in the back, what's not to love?

>>31182773

The Puma is objectively the best it's just really expensive.

>>31182773

I'm convinced the CV90 is still the best.

Best off road capability, great protection and that 40 mm cannon... Mmm. Everything you want in an IFV.


I feel the new Puma is too heavy, too expensive, too delicate and too German.

>>31182773
Bradley has actually killed things before, and should be number one.

>>31183184

What a stupid cliche this is.

>>31183281
Its not stupid, things can be made to look good on paper.

>>31183184
Bradley has shit fragmentation rounds though, does it not? I think it's something of an issue when a vehicle supposed to support infantry can't do that effectively enough.

>>31183184
And so has the cv90. Your point being?

>>31183415
Where has the CV90 done actual combat?

>>31183553

Five seconds in Google can tell you it was deployed to Afghanistan.

>>31182982
>The Puma is objectively the best

Why?

File: Puma desert 2.jpg (244KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1024x683px

>>31183644

It's got a great gun, great ATGMs, it's very well armored, it's VERY mobile for a vehicle of its type and has a range of great technology including tip top modern FCS/sights and APS and has an unmanned turret as well.

Essentially, it ticks everyone of the boxes. It's expensive, and maybe a bit heavy, but it's just a grade A vehicle in virtually every way.

Also it looks sexy as FUCK.

>>31183664
Pardon my ignorance but how does its armour differ from that of say the Warrior or Bradley?

File: Puma 2.jpg (1MB, 2362x1575px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2362x1575px

>>31183682

Vehicle's a lot heavier (It hits over 42 tons when equipped), so it is capable of mounting denser, heavier materials. Bradley and Warrior have damn good armor too, with the Puma they're likely the three best armored ones around. The Puma just has the edge in weight for armor space and density.

You can see the enormous modular blocks on its chassis in pic related.

>>31183664
Idk looks more like a warthog than a puma to me

>>31183749
>enormous modular blocks
Pretty thick.

>>31183749
THICC

File: scout sv.jpg (48KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x427px

>>31182773

>>31183821

The Ajax seems weird to me. It's a ~38-42 tonne vehicle replacing the ~8 tonne CVR(T) family, which even in its infantry carrier configuration carries less than the 28 tonne Warrior, which it will serve alongside.

I can only suppose that all the surveillance equipment it carries takes up a lot of space, and that it will carry more ammunition than the CTA40 turreted Warriors will. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

>>31182975
>what's not to love?
Clip loading

>>31183872
Armor...

>>31182975
>>31182975

På alla sett bättre en en pastagratengbil

>>31183664

It looks very delicate with all those sensors on the turret.

That shit is getting ripped off with the first mortar round..

File: Protected Mobility Recce Support DVD2014.jpg (317KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1600x1067px

>>31183872

>which even in its infantry carrier configuration carries less than the 28 tonne Warrior,

Not quite. The updated Warrior carries 6-7. The Ares (the one pictured in your quote) can carry up to 8 troops.

The "carries 3 troops" monikor is due to the internal layout in the recce support configuration, in which the vast majority of the internal space is filled with equipment racks for ground radars, unmanned ground vehicles, mini UAVs, comms equipment and whatever the recce section wanted to bring to fuck with the enemy. All this is mounted on modular shelving inside it, from the images we've seen of the inside, which are entirely removeable. Other news reports mention "8 men" in them.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/latest-prototype-new-scout-sv-10025524

It's not as common, because they are mostly used for heavy recon (and thus most commonly will have the equipment racks) but it's definitely not because of it lacking space, it just uses it for different, very specific purposes.

>>31183806
>>31183787

You want thicc? Pic related you classy motherfuckers.

>>31183945

Sure, but the ASCOD the Ajax is based on is also a 28 tonne vehicle. It's going to be interesting seeing the final specifications for the Ajax, because it looks like it's going to be very heavy, not able to carry many infantry, lacking the ATGMs other heavy IFVs have, and having a middling power/weight ratio. This leaves its protection and intelligence capabilities as the areas it may excel in. We'll have to wait and see.

>>31182975
>what's not to love
Being Swedish and not Norwegian?

>>31184232
>Surstromming fired

>>31184085

Ah ok, that is good to hear, that those figures are including more equipment than a typical infantryman. I was wondering where the space was all going.

I'm not badmouthing it. MoD procurement is hit and miss, but I'm perfectly happy to give it the benefit of the doubt until we actually see them in service (and the actual price tag). It certainly seems different from what any other country has gone for, in terms of its emphasis.

>>31184216
>Sure, but the ASCOD the Ajax is based on is also a 28 tonne vehicle.
Don't you think this implies a massively enhanced protection level?

File: Spartan Javelin ADTU Trial RWS.png (443KB, 749x351px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 749x351px

>>31184216

It's not an IFV, nor is it meant to be carrying tons of men.

The role of the Ajax family is heavy reconnaisance and battlefield intelligence networking. It's better to think of them as an E-3 Sentry with treads and a big stonking autocannon than as an IFV. They don't throw ATGMs from their chassis, they throw Brimstones, 155mm rounds, Spikes and MLRS rounds at, with the munition emerging from 25km+ away at whatever their god eye has decided to fuck up that day, while streaming that information and targeting around virtually every major platform in the theatre in near real time. An Ajax grouping is not just a "recce to spot", it's a server of information to the theatre as a whole that isn't just a simple little light vehicle to chase off like a Wiesel, Scimitar, Fennek or whatnot.

It's difficult to look at its basic "AFV" status and see what its role is. But it's when looking into its battle field presence that just why it's the way it is starts to make sense. With war becoming more about lightning speed information gathering and throwing munitions at, this is exactly the sort of role it was designed to fulfill. And then it goes off and bullies anything short of an MBT with that cannon anyway on its way home again.

Took them long enough, though. The program's been a shitshow of delays.

As a note on ATGMs, it's highly likely it'll have them anyway. It's getting the Protector RWS, which the British Army have already been trialing with Javelin missiles out to 4km. Pic related. So the Ares platforms beside the Ajax will have ATGMs on their roof anyway, as will the Javelin teams that pretty much always will be accompanying them. They may also be getting Starstreak Ground-to-Air Missiles in launchers that can also chuck the new Martlet multirole missile too.

http://www.janes.com/article/62958/thales-uk-set-to-qualify-lmm-for-british-army-service

>>31184370

Yes, I shouldn't have really described it as an IFV, since it was effectively designed to fulfill all the "non IFV" roles for light armour, leaving the Warrior to be the IFV.

From the looks of it, the watchword for the Ajax is "futureproof" to have the weight allowance to add capabilities or repurpose it as required.

>>31184370
Another thing to note about the Ajax family is that they're quite clearly meant for the formation reconnaissance role. IE- they'll likely be fighting for their information, as well as in economy of force roles. They need the weapon and the armor to survive all that.

There are two basic ideas for scouting- go small and stealthy and hope nobody sees you or go in fairly heavily armed and take the reconnaissance you need by force.

The best IFV is an MBT

>>31184232
Ouch

>>31182773
>The Puma is the most protected IFV currently available. It has modular armor. There is an option of three various protection levels to suit operational needs. The Puma IFV with maximum level of protection is even heavier than the T-72 main battle tank. It can be even considered as a heavy IFV. It seems that the most protected variant withstands 120- and 125-mm projectiles over the front arc. Vehicle also withstands mine blasts equivalent to 10 kg of TNT. The Puma is also fitted with advanced threat warning system.

Is there a public source stating that the Puma has this level of protection, or are they just stating this based on it's high weight?

>>31185110
What did he mean by this?

>>31183566
Yeah, I said actual combat.

>>31184232
Was in Norway recently. The place is pretty based. Except my cousins' girlfriend was literally a 6 foot tall blond-hair blue-eyed babe who minored in muslim studies. I've plenty of Kafka, and Camus, but I've never experience surrealism like that before.

>>31185685

Ten seconds of Google can show you that once deployed to Afghanistan and made contact.

Are you trying to be obtuse?

>>31185772
*it made contact

>>31185785
Contact with Haji using a SMLE and AK isn't real combat.

>>31185831

That's not for you to define.

>>31183664
>great ATGM

It will have you mean, it doesn't have Spike fit yet (and that will make it even more expensive).

>>31185183
It's horse shit, Puma is STANAG 6 in its uparmored configuration.

Even if it weighed as much as a T-72 it is twice as big.

File: Screen-Shot-2013-10-10-at-12.26.38-PM-300x286.png (138KB, 300x286px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 300x286px

>>31185831
and this is my picture faggots. come at me

>>31185948
why not?

>>31182975
>>31182773
Its kinda cool how its basically using a WWII era weapon, yet with modern ammunition its perfect for an IFV

>>31188550
I wouldn't say perfect. It's a bit large, as is its ammunition.

File: kurganets-25-infantry-fighting-vehicle-russia.jpg (49KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 800x550px

Kurganets-25

>>31188761
Hull looks awfully similar to CV90, turret is still a dark horse and this IFV is still in trials. Nice looks though.

>>31189385
Well at least is swims

>>31183755
Didn't I tell you to stop making up animals?

>>31183956
Saknat du bokstaven ä på tangentbordet, pojk?

>>31188748
>offset turret

ABSOLUTELY
DISGUSTING

>>31189385
Turrets is proven, armor is still a dark horse, russian IFVs is famous because inferior armor

PL-01

pic related

those programmable rounds look pretty cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj0q-sxKrvg

>>31189385
>Hull looks awfully similar to CV90
No it doesn't. The external shape especially the glacis suggests BMP-3; in fact the BMP-3 Dragoon with its front-engine arrangement looks very, very similar.
>>31190553
>Turrets is proven
mediocre you mean. basic bitch 30 mm isn't going to cut it against new generation of IFVs, and Kornet pods can be mounted on just about any turret.

>russian IFVs is famous because inferior armor
False. They have comparable protection in the frontal aspect including some arcs within the safe maneuvering angles to their contemporaries whilst weighing half as much. The Kurganets have the weight limitation relaxed finally so its expected to have comparable or even better protection not just from the front but for the sides, top or just about any aspect of the vehicle compared to its contemporaries.

>>31190871
>They have comparable protection in the frontal aspect including some arcs within the safe maneuvering angles to their contemporaries whilst weighing half as much

STANAG 4 frontal and 3 on the sides is not comperable protection to a Bradley, Warrior, CV90 or Puma.

>>31191011
>STANAG 4 frontal and 3 on the sides is not comperable protection to a Bradley, Warrior, CV90 or Puma.
I said contemporaries, nigger. The BMP-2's STANAG 4 and 3 on the front and side resp. compare favorably to the original M2 Bradley of 1981 vintage. Doubly hilarious when BMP-3s that are 12 tons lighter have similar protection to M2A2's within the same time period, and even early models of CV-90 that came much later.

>>31191242
>Doubly hilarious when BMP-3s that are 12 tons lighter have similar protection to M2A2's within the same time period,

But that's wrong, A2 Bradleys were the first uparmored Bradleys and BMP-3's do not have comperable protection.

>>31191242
>BMP-2
>STANAG 4 front

no

>>31191296
>>31191304
Denial isn't just the name of a river in Egypt.

File: juju.jpg (59KB, 348x506px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 348x506px

>>31185618
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer

>>31191324
Then why are you projecting your denial on others?

How would /k/ design an IFV? How much armor and weapons should an ideal IFV have? How far would it go before it turns into a MBT with naval autocannons?

>>31191462
Has to carry at least a full section/squad of infantry for starters.

File: Uparmoured Bradley.jpg (23KB, 800x569px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 800x569px

>>31191462

Around 35 tons at combat fit, to be able to fit into things smaller than a C-17. Heavier modules take to around 42 tons. Combination of applique and ERA.

Equipped with either a Supershot 50 or a CT40, plus Spike LR missiles, in an unmanned turret. 7.62mm coax.

Protector RWS.

Puma's engine, around 1,000hp.

Carries 8 men.

AMAP-ADS protection system.

>>31191462
It's all about anti-infantry in sand battles these days, so go from there

Protection against small arms and shaped charges, armed with BRRRRRRRRRT, maybe ATGMs for the odd snackbar tank

>>31191510
Size wise, you would have trouble fitting 3 crew plus 8, and have it fit into a C-130J.

>>31188761
what ATGMs are those?

File: Dutch_YPR-765_in_Afghanistan.jpg (638KB, 3500x2328px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 3500x2328px

>>31191544

Didn't say it'd fit into a C-130. Just "smaller than C-17". Thing like an A400M, for example, intended for medium armor.

>>31191432
>Then why are you projecting your denial on others?
You just proved my point even further. Keep it up.
>>31191462
T-15 and uparmed Namer are pretty much the ideal- from the perspective of the end user that is.

>How far would it go before it turns into a MBT with naval autocannons?
Not very. IFVs would just take up ATGMs and call it a day.

>>31191502
>>31191510
Infantry squads should be around 13 men (oorah) so carrying 7-8 men is enough per IFV. Two per squad, I think.

>>31191510
>unmanned turret
But how will the commander look out?

>>31191586
A-400m aint much wider friendo.

>>31191654
Are there even any IFVs or APCs that can carry an entire USMC squad? 13 seems unwieldy.

File: A400M Ares Fitting Tests.jpg (296KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1024x768px

>>31191669

It can fit.

>>31191667

Same way they do on the Puma, with the turret's significant sensors.

Or if you want to add expense, the Ajax's commandar ISTAR suite, but that would be impractically expensive on top of everything else.

>>31182773
List is fine.

I'd put the CV90 lower though as it relies entirely on the 40mm for everything which decreases its overall ammunition and can only harm AFVs from the side and rear. Giving up an ATGM just to rely that much on the cannon is a bit much.

File: bmt72-05l.jpg (149KB, 1600x674px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1600x674px

>>31182773
>http://www.military-today.com/apc/top_10_infantry_fighting_vehicles.htm

Fucking plebs,this is th best IFV!

>>31191803

File: bmt72-04l.jpg (183KB, 1600x1050px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1600x1050px

>>31191809

>>31191654
Fuck off, Marine. Normal rifle squads are 9 men max.

>>31191701
The ACV entrants are supposed to carry up to 13, but the two "finalists" can only carry 12 passengers. If they needed to, they could definitely squeeze another guy in.

>>31191829
13 man squads are superior.

>>31191848

>Squads
>Relivent in any significant way
Squads are just a way of letting the Company absorb casualties

>>31191878
>Relivent

By contrast, the USMC remains committed to its 13 man Rifle Squad, and infantry across the world look at that squad and drool, imagining what they could do with that kind of organization. It possesses unmatched ability to take losses, well-trained troops and leaders, and an organization that gives it the ability to operate much like the Rifle Squads/Sections of old, using tried and true methods. Its squad leader can move between fire teams and direct suppressive fires on the enemy and even do so with weapons attached to the squad by the platoon , though with its own organic light machine guns and grenade launchers, one each per fire team, it does not routinely need to do so, unlike the US Army Rifle Squad of Vietnam War vintage. Each Fire Team (with a LMG and grenade launcher, comparing handsomely to the machine gun teams/groups of old) possess sufficient firepower to provide adequate supressive fire for an assault while the other two fire teams, with a combined total of 8 men, easily match the rifle teams' groups of old in their ability to launch assaults even when sustaining losses. The USMC, admittedly, is not as directly affected by mechanization as the Army, but the need for infantry to close with an destroy the enemy is unchanged in any army. With USMC rifle squads frequently down to 6 men in operations in places like Fallujah, US Army rifle squads operating under similar conditions could at best be described as fire teams.

>>31191886
Marine fireteams and squads are functionally identical to US Army fireteams and squads. The only difference is that the US Army has one less of fireteam per squad.

Now yes, the advantage of the Marine's way of doing things is in taking casualties. I don't know of any other squads in the world who can take as many casualties and retain combat effectiveness. However, this does have tradeoffs. Probably the most evident case is the Marine's lack of organic transportation. The armored vehicles it does possess are either hulking monstrosities (AAV-7s) or can't carry anywhere close to a full squad, and aren't APCs/IFVs anyways (LAVs). This leads to a fracturing of assets as not an entire squad or platoon can get into a given transport. Further, Marine rifle company is significantly larger than most other rifle companies. This places increased logistics burden on it. Further, it means that a Marine force will have significantly less frontage than an Army force of the same strength. Just to take this as an example, let's say there are 130 men. In the USMC, this would be 10 rifle squads. In the US Army, it's 14 and a half rifle squads. While the individual squads might be a bit more capable, the US Army has a greater number of maneuver assets.

So yeah, cut down on your dickwaving.

>>31191653
>You just proved my point even further.

That you are projecting denial because of the BMP's thin armor?

>>31191716
And 30mm. And 35mm. And 50mm. And BILL2 anti-tank missile.

>>31192010
>That you are projecting denial because of the BMP's thin armor?
No, I meant that you are so butthurt to project your own denial of what is basically a very elementary fact to anyone who does his research. If the BMP has a thin armor then contemporary western IFVs aren't any better and not being subject to stringent weight and volume limits this rather makes it all the more hilarious.

>>31192073
> then contemporary western IFVs aren't any better

...but they are...

File: post-5597-0-65405700-1453035268.jpg (259KB, 1024x632px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1024x632px

Worst korea's K-21 IFV. Copycat of CV-90 and can fuck Best korea's ass

>>31182975
No issued ATGM. Y'all really need to jump on that Spike launcher.

>>31192097
>...but they are...
When they are ten years newer, cost 3 times as much at least, and are twice as heavy- yeah.

>>31192073
Western IFV's ARE better armored, hence your denial.

>>31192146
Bradleys are the same age as BMP-2's, and holy fuck them goalposts.

>>31192150
>Western IFV's ARE better armored, hence your denial.
If you are comparing to something down the line, not the contemporary Russian one, they aren't.

>>31192176
>Bradleys are the same age as BMP-2's, and holy fuck them goalposts.
The original M2 bradley can only take 14.5 mm HMG hits- same as the fucking BMP-2. The M2 version that can take 30 mm APDS only appeared in '88, a year later after the BMP-3 was released- holy fuck the level of ignorance you dumbasses display here.

>>31192236
>M2
*A2

>>31192177
M2A2 (1988) vs. BMP-3 (1987)

File: 1461663481188.jpg (337KB, 2020x1124px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2020x1124px

ZBD-08 of PLA is the best IFV in the world.

http://www.military-today.com/apc/zbd_08.htm

>>31192236
>The original M2 bradley can only take 14.5 mm HMG hits- same as the fucking BMP-2.

all around protection =/= frontal protection

File: M-80_A.jpg (1MB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2272x1704px

>>31182773
One of the best for it's time!

>>31192249
>M2A2 (1988) vs. BMP-3 (1987)
former is resistant to 30 mm APDS, the latter against 25 mm APFSDS, and both in frontal aspect. Both can mount additional armor on their sides to bring up their respective protection levels approaching to the level of the front's.
>>31192255
Uses a fucking padlock for the rear door.

>>31192314
>former is resistant to 30 mm APDS

From the front and sides.

>the latter against 25 mm APFSDS

APDS, from the front. And 12.7mm on the sides with applique that negates its vaunted amphibious capability.

>>31192272
>all around protection =/= frontal protection
It is if you nigger-rig a schurzen similar to what the original Bradley mounted.
The rear doors could also be filled with sand, so its already better than the cardboard Bradlley doors.

File: crazy face.jpg (45KB, 656x437px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 656x437px

>>31192314
>Uses a fucking padlock for the rear door.

lol for real?

>>31192110
K-21 is beastly. Like a more heavily armed, better defended CV-90.

>>31192236
Correct. And then they saw that the 30mm autocannon was on the BMP-2 and immediately uparmored it.

>>31192383
schurzen was thin plates, and later just meshes, meant to tumble anti-material rifle rounds

File: negativi_cokov_0301.jpg (470KB, 1200x804px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1200x804px

>>31192299

File: negativi_cokov_0311.jpg (572KB, 1200x813px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1200x813px

>>31192659

File: MGcWEpr.jpg (90KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1000x750px

>>31192674

File: 112469_87633622_IMGP4362.jpg (110KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x768px

>>31192682

File: negativi_cokov_0451.jpg (504KB, 1200x813px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1200x813px

>>31192698

File: IMG_1686.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>31192730

So eurofags are great at designing IFV 's ?

File: 1447864438058.jpg (59KB, 802x542px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 802x542px

>>31191981
You forgot the part where Marines are American's shocktroops and always get the job done (and do it better then some other branches) in spite of having equipment inferior to that of the army.
ARMY - Aren't Really Marines Yet.
Oorah!

>>31188753

That clean three round burst at the end.

>>31192809

They are mostly great designs, but then there is also that procurement cycles got around to replacing their old IFVs post Cold War, and their defence policies allowed them to severely cut back on numbers to focus on quality. For example, West Germany produced 2100 Marder IFVs for its army during the cold war, but its replacement the Puma is only confirmed for 350 units, only 1/6th the numbers.

The Bradley has been in service since the early 80s and the US army has around ~2000 M2 & M3 in service, which it will want to replace as close to a 1:1 level as budget will allow, making replacement more expensive.

>>31192134
Dismounts are issued NLAWs

File: ifvanders.jpg (200KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1024x683px

This new baby

>>31182773
The best IFV is from my country, because I'm from that country too.

>>31194544
Did they just fucking copy paste the headlights from the Patria AMV/KTO Rosomak?

File: 13268382_1183006491724096_2975119818476712112_o.jpg (65KB, 534x1236px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 534x1236px

>>31194534
>Maximum firing range
>1000m

>>31194581
Yea, since they got the license. Why bother with new design, put something that already works its cost effective.

>>31194598
There isnt many places in sweden where you have more than a 1000 meters line of sight anyway.

>>31194544
looks like it was designed in minecraft

>>31194814
Squares works better against digital cameras or sat cams

or some shit like that

>>31193148
Could you please cease shitposting

>>31183664
Damn't, that's kind of attractive.

>tfw no Puma dating pages in my area.