The US Army receives its first M113 replacement. >Mike S

>>32337967
The United States Army can eat the frummeunda cheese from my ballsack.

How do you like that?

A big, heavy, expensive, weakly armed troop carrier that fulfills the prophecy of the pentagon wars.

How hard is it for the USA to design a vehicle with a modern hull layout, 8 man carrying capability and a 30mm gun with 4 ATGM.
This is just a shittier designed version of what the Russian have with the Kurganets.

>>32338077
>http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bae-systems-presents-first-ampv-prototype-to-us-army
>Troop carrier
>muh 30mm and ATGM's
Did you even watch Pentagon Wars?

File: pentagon wars.jpg (470KB, 1446x952px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1446x952px

>>32338077
>>32338104
>treating Pentagon Wars as a serious movie

The military sometimes makes poor decisions.

This is not one of them. A turretless bradley is a fantastic idea.

File: 1478013617021.jpg (10KB, 332x336px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 332x336px

>>32337967
Wow a Bradley without a turret.


This took how many years?

>>32338162
>>32338196
It's not actually a Bradley hull, in fact BAE is offering to upgrade Bradley's by sticking their turret on an AMPV hull in a swap similar to how flat bottom Strykers are being replaced with double V hulls.

>>32338077

Not all APCs need to be support weapons, quick, reliable and also importantly cheap troop movers aren't totally nonviable.

>>32337967
Is that a new generation of ERA on the side? Is that front ERA tandem warhead proof?

>>32338331
Not likely, for both.

>>32337967

Looks fine

That ERA will be RPG-29-tier resistant

>>32338331

ARAT and BRAT (Abrams and Bradley ERA) are both anti-tandem of the PG-29V/PG-7VR-class

No reason to assume it's less than the basic Bradley

>>32338379
Nice, I can never find anything about American ERA.

Will this have a fire support variant?

>>32337967
Is it really that hard to have an M2 turret which is not a complete clusterfuck? Why is it so fucking tall? Why does it leave the operator so exposed? Admittedly it's not meant to be in combat but why design it so badly?

M113 operator here. Dear god let this happen. 113s need to be scrapped, to a vehicle.

>>32338074
Go to bed Carlo Kopp, you've had too much to drink

File: Bradley-Fire-Support.jpg (4MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3200x1800px

>>32338487
>Will this have a fire support variant?
BFIST already exists

>>32337967
Isn't that a Gavin?

>>32338546
>113s need to be scrapped, to a vehicle.
Isn't it still adequate as a tracked truck?

>>32337967
Who is Mike Sparks? And the M113 isn't as bad as people say it is, this is a really good video about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YroI-GkeprY

File: Screen-Shot-2015-03-31-at-4.37.20-PM.png (254KB, 842x572px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 842x572px

>>32338720
No

>>32339152
Jesus

File: 1428588818487.png (446KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 640x640px

>>32338769
>who is Mike Sparks
>posts one of his autistic tl;dr videos

>>32338487
They are replacing the 5 M113 variants in use by Armor BCT's.

>infantry carrier
>120mm mortar carrier
>command vehicle
>medical ambulance
>medical field station

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfJIn1Zygto

>>32338721
Its not adequate as a fucking range target
Well, i'm a bit harsh. It probably has its uses. But rolling along the frontline sure as hell isnt. Some of the new versions here and there with decent powerpacks and shit are less crap.

File: UscoIUZ.png (498KB, 761x820px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 761x820px

>>32338769

>>32338657
No 11bravo. Color me unimpressed.

>>32339301
MGS variant when

>>32337967
Let me guess can't be air dropped, costs too damn much for what it's worth.

Does it at least offer NBC protection?
Don't tell me we bought something exclusively for goat fuckers

>>32339228
I don't know who Mike Sparks is but I like that Youtube channel. They did a good video about the F-111 Aardvark (my favorite plane)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bka8M-UKqc

>>32340681
If i didnt know about this guy and whatever his aliases might be these days, I'd either figure these clips were satire or some kind of SNL-crap

>>32339301
that mortar carrier...hnnng

>>32340681
Sorry Anon, but to be fair, a good portion of it is trash. There are a few things that are correct, but if you look at any of Blacktail's stuff, take it with a grain of salt and do fact checking yourself.

>>32340681
99% of that is misinformed garbage

>>32338285
neato, didn't know it was a new hull.

>>32340646
probably as air droppable as a kurganets or an ASCOD.
surplus bradlys could always be used i guess.
As for NBC protection, who fucking knows at this point, i couldn't count the amount of modern(ish) vehicles nowadays that arent protected against such things theres so many.
It's an APC replacement so no its not exclusively for goat fuckers. though i don't know why its needed when there's already the stryker fulfilling that role

>>32338694
>LRF spontaneously catching fire every 10 minutes

>>32339301
>Americans still use ghetto workshop mortar carriers in the 21st century
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10h3uX_lBGM

>>32339821
they should just demil them and sell them off as surplus to the civilian market. I hear they're the best choice for babby's first APC.

>>32341301
Hell,i'd love having one to drive around in the forrest or some shit. Just got really tired of trying to make them work for 5 years in the army

>>32339152
That's pretty whopper

>more interior volume then M113
>then
>THEN
good job army

File: 1480991136953.jpg (95KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 660x495px

>>32339152
>>32342311

holy shit

How long do you think it'll take before they start putting autocannons or 105mm guns on all of them

File: lorb.jpg (65KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 390x470px

>>32338162

>>32340993

Funny thing is that the Amerifats have evaluated many modern turreted mortar systems like AMOS, NEMO, SRAMS, AMS II and they still don't get it.

I know nothing about this subject topic.
Why is this a meme, or why is this happening.

>>32339152
Should've just gone full rhino to be honest.

File: 1459573561243.png (5KB, 410x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 410x250px

>>32338077 retard
>>32338162 retard
>>32338506 retard
>>32338546 super retard
>>32339821 slight retard
>>32340646 retard
>>32344870 super retard

These are rear with the gear vehicles that support combat operations. They don't conduct fontline combat. Who cares if a M113 command post can be penetrated by an ATGM, RPG7, 14.5mm, 7.62, or a stern look. If your 113/AMPV CP is in combat you have MUCH bigger problems.

Some of you fucks need to open up doctrine and red pill yourself. The 113 is a fine vehicle, it's just old. You can put a couple scingars radios, a BFT, and a white board in the back of a E350 Ecoline van and do the same damn thing. Same goes for all these vehicles. You seriously missed the point behind these things. Pic unrelated.

>>32345215
>M113 operator
>super retard
why though, he's probably the most knowledgeable here

>>32345284
>Probably
I wasn't aware some private who was stuck in a Headquarters element because he couldn't suck enough dick to do his job he trained for would sway the status quo that these are still only "support" vehicles and nothing more then that. I have five years in ABCTs just FYI. That includes time in, on, and around M113s too.

>>32345215
M113's are great if your support vehicle never leaves the fence.

>>32345215
>You can put a couple scingars radios, a BFT, and a white board in the back of a E350 Ecoline van and do the same damn thing
So why did we need to make a new thing that ends up being even biggerwhen it offers no tangible increase from the old?

>>32345215
The point is that all of the M113s in service are fucking ancient and falling apart. My ABCT had a ton of them and they were all pieces of shit. All six of my battery's FDC M113s caught fire at some point in my time in that unit. They might have once been fine, and would still fill the role adaquately I'm sure, but why replace them with a 50+ year old design when you can get something new and better?

Also, having heard stories about convoys with these things in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll take something with a bit better protection.

>>32345764
Why even bother replying?
It's not like as if he tried particularly hard to hide that he's baiting, what with the randomly selected and completely ontradictory quoting.

>>32337967
BO-RING!

Call me when they build one with a GAU-8 on a remote-controlled turret with the crew compartment replaced by a 10,000 round ammo hold for urban combat.

>>32345808
>why replace them with a 50+ year old design when you can get something new and better?

I hope you're not serious. Even the army has a finite amount of money to spend.

>>32340557
There is no point. You would only see AMPVs in an ABCT where your fire support vehicle is an Abrams.

>>32345881
Yes, attack the poster instead of the post. Since you won't ever wander into a recruiting office let me tell you how an armor company works in a heaving combined arms battalion.

There's 2 companies of tanks and 2 -1 companys of infantry mounted on Bradley's. There's a Headquarters company, and a logistics company also. All your 113s are in headquarters, from medevacs, mortars, fsc, mechanics sometimes, command posts, some are 577 high backs.

There is no "M113" MOS in the army. The position is filled by people who are either too retarded to do their jobs or are surplus sodiers.

Line companies get a medevac 113 and a command post 113. The HQ platoon's 113, is commanded by the HQ platoon Sgt, and driven by surplus tankers, infantry, or anyone else. Usually people who have no business doing the job they were trained. Even the HQ PSG is a fuck that is broken, getting out, stupid, ir has some other professional defect. I am not baiting, you're a useless idiot.

Experience may differ in different companies/battalions, but it's a general rule of thumb for all our ABCTs.

>>32346393
>>32346393
Fucking mobile
Fucking autocorrect

>>32338077
>Newest Stryker carries 9, double v-hulled, has a 30mm and Javelin mount

>>32342311
Git learned to make stuff more deader.

>>32346425
Don't you mean
>Newest Bradley has wheels

>>32346304
new M113s would not be as cheap as the ones built in the 60's, not by a long shot. It's the same with how a P-51 would probably be a good COIN airplane with a few small avionics upgrades, but if you are expecting the 1944 inflation adjusted price tag forget it.

>>32338074
fpbp

File: Namer_in_US (1).jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

>>32346914
That's misleading. For 1, we already have next generation M113s, the US isn't the only operator. Secondly, it's still cheaper then the AMPV. Don't get me wrong fuck the 113. But if I had responsibility of managing finances the 113 would stay.

On a personal level we should have gotten this.

>>32339152
Side mounted Heavy Bolters and Lascanons when?

File: 1391140293388.jpg (72KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 245x320px

>>32337967
>cheap M113s flooding government auctions soon
Fuck yes.

>>32347028
Upgraded M113's do not fix the basic flaws of the design.

File: Bradley models.jpg (155KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1600x900px

>General Dynamics Land Systems withdrew itself from the initial competition to replace the ABCT M113s because it argued the Army unfairly favored the tracked Bradley derivative from BAE in its requirements for AMPV.

KEK.

Good, about time the APC will have part commonality with the tracked IFV instead of a fucking wheeled vehicle that GD envisioned with its tracked Stryker.

>>32346425
>has a 30mm or Javelin mount

Fixed that for you.

They also have less protection and are wheeled which is inappropriate for keeping up with heavy tracked armor.

File: 1480831919665.gif (463KB, 340x255px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 340x255px

Anything is better than those shitty fucking 113's

8 hours of maintenance for 1 hour of operation seriously fuck those broken down pieces of shit.

>>32347028

Namer a shit

Protection isn't better

It's heavier and bigger

>>32348103
elaborate on the first two
as for heavier and bigger, no fucking shit, its based off a merkava. its created to suit what the IDF requires and fill its role fine FOR THEM.

Why don't we copy the Namor?

We can use the basic vehicle for spaag, sparky howitzer, recovery, bridge, anti air and anti armor missle launcher, etc.

Pretty much everything but mbt

>>32337967

Finally. Now to send those junkers off to the Marines!

>>32337967

So...would buying these things and converting them into bulldozers/tractors/ect. be any viable? I'm hearing that the majority of them are costing a whole lot of maintenance for their trouble; what's their normal pricing?

>>32349423

The M113 I mean.

File: 1470355008697.jpg (27KB, 390x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 390x480px

>yfw gavins get turned into grills and you melt plastic army men inside of them.

>yfw when it ain't me begins playing and the treeline behind your house bursts into flames.

>>32349240
Israel is tiny and doesn't have to move Namers very far.

>>32338077
M113 is weakly armored and slow.

File: GCV 01.jpg (802KB, 3246x2500px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 3246x2500px

Hey guys, remember me?

What's the current news on the Bradley's upgrades/replacement?

File: 5cpEVQJ.jpg (963KB, 4147x2216px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 4147x2216px

>>32350859
Bradleys are in the middle of an ECP upgrade cycle. New double pin tracks that have 3x the lifespan of the old tracks, the 675hp engine/transmission used in the AMPV and M109A7, upgraded electronics and electricity generation.

All M3 Bradleys are being converted to M2 Bradleys.

BAE is offering a further upgrade of swapping the Bradley hull for an AMPV hull.

The army is testing 4-5 APS systems to have on forward deployed units.

File: RhinoDarkAngels00.jpg (49KB, 923x415px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 923x415px

>>32345149

It actually looks the size of a Rhino, maybe slightly smaller

>>32350963
nice BFIST brah

>>32339152

i bet it carries the same amount of americans inside, only adjusted for "modern body meassures"

>>32351172
Yeah, American troops do have a lot more resources to lift and get swole now.

>>32351144
I hope they can mount a remote turret on that thing

>>32350963
Cheers, is the FFV program dead?

>>32351216
They can, but they're going for a manned gun because it's cheaper.

>>32351284
Ask again in 10-15 years.

>>32351297
>It's cheaper
True
I dont really like the idea of a manned turret nowadays. A sniped/blown up soldier costs more than a remote turret (at least in my non-existent financial analyzing skills)

File: 1458868119175.jpg (27KB, 446x446px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 446x446px

>>32339152
Looks like a nice big target

>>32352748
Good thing its not meant for prolonged activity in high risk zones.

>>32342311
>American education

>>32352748
That's because unlike Russian technology it can survive more than a Somali technical drive-by

>BMP3
>$2 million
>Sophisticated ATGMs
>Powerful autocannon
>50 cal MG will take it right out

>>32350001
The only AFV in the US inventory it's slower than has less armor.

>>32352748
>says while posting something bigger

>>32351355
Manned guns are cheaper as the armor is just as survivable in the nest as it is on the rest of the beast and humans react quicker.

That's said CROWS has its place usually on point or towards the exterior where early detection matters more than reflexes.

I hate desert tan.

Worst came ever

Need to replace the stryker brigades with these things
And turn the light infantry brigades into stryker brigades

>>32339152
That's a big vehicle

>>32351172
lol

File: image.gif (2MB, 280x358px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 280x358px

>>32353561
For you

>>32353266
M113's are the least armored AFV in use by the USArmy.

File: 69e81a3a5b7fedef03f770e414ec3f70_370_480.jpg (32KB, 370x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 370x480px

>>32351172
haha nice bantz faggot

File: puma ifv.jpg (111KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x550px

>not just buying Pumas
C'mon
It's already done and developed

>>32349685
US has the best logistics in the world. We can pre deploy equipment almost anywhere in the world.

>>32337967
What's so wrong with the Gavin that they have to upgrade to this pile of shit instead of the Gavin?

The Gavin is one of the few pieces of military hardware that the US has that actually performs exceptionally. I say keep the Gavin, and let the Gavin roll on into the 21st century.

>>32354361
>need an APC
>buy an IFV instead

are you retarded?

>>32354435
Nobody needs an APC nowadays, except for idiots looking to get killed. IFV all the way, and the more armor the better.

File: 1335316607571.gif (94KB, 346x323px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 346x323px

>>32354413
>The Gavin is one of the few pieces of military hardware that the US has that actually performs exceptionally.

>>32351144
is that me or it share some design with the israely APC that use T55 chassis ?

>>32349423
>So...would buying these things and converting them into bulldozers/tractors/ect. be any viable? I'm hearing that the majority of them are costing a whole lot of maintenance for their trouble; what's their normal pricing

1. I doubt they have engines powerful enough to do towing or earthmoving, I've never worked on M113 engines but I'd reason they were designed to carry the vehicle with the additional weight of it's soldiers for the best fuel economy possible rather than developing the crazy amounts of torque at low rpms a slow moving farm/construction vehicle needs.

2.the vast majority of their maintenance is probably due to aging electrical systems spread through out the vehicle in places where maintenance cannot be easily done, tracking a short in one of those things would be Hell.

>>32354451
>Nobody needs an APC

Well. Execept every unit that is not in direct frontline combat.

Having a 30 mm turret ontop of your mortar carrier/command station/field ambulance/EW-platform would be compleatly stupid.

>>32354663
If you're not going to go into direct combat, you can make do fine with an 8x8. And lo was it so, as every country and their dog started adopting them in the last 15 years for the jobs that they formerly used tracked tin cans for.
>Stryker
>Boxer

>>32338077

>Pentagon wars

but the bradley was good

>>32341301
This. Help fund the new shit! Sell us the old shit!

I'll give Uncle Sam 5k for a decent m113.

>>32354681
To a ceratin degree yes. I for instance live in the far north, where there is snow 10 months of the year. I would not want to have half my brigade tied up to the very few roads that may or may not be cleared.

While I do fully support the concept if wheeled units, I think that they should be organized so that you have one type of brigade where the majority of vehicles is wheeled, and one type where pretty much everything is tracked.

>>32354778
>I think that they should be organized so that you have one type of brigade where the majority of vehicles is wheeled, and one type where pretty much everything is tracked.
So Stryker Brigades versus Heavy Brigades

>>32354778
This thing isn't much snowcrawler to me.

>>32354778
Well yeah, that's a Panzer group in the Bundeswehr. There's nothing in it that isn't tracked.
>Leo
>Puma
>Left over Marders
>PzH 2000
>shock force 2damax
What more do you need? Germany never even really used something like a M113, besides actual M113s taken over by the US. We've been going with the Fuchs for a while, and that's just a 6x6. Those do go fine offroad, and so does the Boxer.

>>32354808
>>32354809

We used to have some brigades with mainly BV206s, that can travel over the snow.

They were later replaced by MT-LBs but ultimatly got disbanded compleatly, a shame if you ask me, given how much snow there is here.

>>32354663
Except on a modern battlefield, things move fast, and your "rear" units can easily run into combat, especially when you are overrunning enemy positions

So yea, they should be able to fight

>>32337967
Why not put a turret on it with like a 20mm gun on it?

>>32355998
Your absolutely right. Things do move fast.

Which is exactly why APCs are supposed to be fast enough to get the fuck out of hot areas at a moments notice. If you want staying power, buy a tank or IFV.

File: hqdefault (2).jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>32356175
Because its a troop carrier sir.

>>32356246
10/10 post. Well Done, Sir.

File: Mark_IX_tank_IWM_Q_14515.jpg (70KB, 800x604px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x604px

>>32356175
What this guy >>32356246 said.

>>32354663
>Having a 30 mm turret ontop of your mortar carrier/command station/field ambulance/EW-platform would be compleatly stupid.

Why is having more firepower stupid.

>>32357373
Because that would
1, decrease the internal volume drastically
2, increase weight
3, requie far more maintanance/training
4, not be worth the cost

Watching Pentagon Wars right now with my GF ;_;

>>32350859
Those headlights always crack me up

>>32357373
Lets just strap mortars to the back of every medic, sniper and com-operator around then. Surely that wont affect them doing their main job at all

>>32357373
It takes up space and increases the overall weight drastically. Why would a mortar carrier or an ambulance need a 30mm?

>>32346393
>There's 2 companies of tanks and 2 -1 companys of infantry mounted on Bradley's.
Currently, according to the FM, they're supposed to have 2 companies of tanks AND two companies of mech inf per battalion. Combined Arms Battalions therefor have four maneuver companies.

>>32358544
That's changing. Several battalions in 2nd ABCT 1st Cavalry Division are losing 1 company of infantry. I was just there. Downsizing man. IDK how it is elsewhere, 1 ID, 2 ID, 1 AR etc but I was under the implication it's a FORSCOM level decision

>>32356217
Don't talk to retards. They think APCs and IFVs are the same thing. Or that we should turn all APCs into IFVs

If it's an "APC" that is not meant for rough use or frontline action, why is it still on tracks and not wheels like in every non-retarded country on Earth?

Maintenance question for any and all US tracked AFV operators:

How is maintenance tracked and vehicle readiness maintained at unit level?

If M113 or anything else "breaks" someone isn't doing their job and the same practices would presumably affect vehicle readiness to some degree throughout all fleets.

What agency would have consolidated vehicle failure information?

The Air Force is huge on vehicle awareness and it's briefed daily along with aircraft and support equipment readiness, but I'm curious about how Army takes care of their shit. All Air Force maintenance discrepancies are entered electronically into maintenance data collection systems which will later have whatever the fix was and parts used also entered.

How good is US Army vehicle maintenance and repair in general?

The Air Force designates "cann" assets from aircraft on down as temporary parts donors to keep the fleet running. They are returned to service and others take their place to avoid "hangar queens". Does Army do anything like that?

The Congressional Budget Office recommended the US buy the Puma FOV because it's available right now and very well designed. Failure of all Army tracked AFV development programs means we have nothing off the shelf to compete, and a US factory could produce Puma here. We already use Rheinmetall cannon.

Puma can be fitted with a Leopard turret besides all the other modular weapon systems like AMOS the US currently lacks. Germans make some slick machinery.

Fun M113 fact: While the US doesn't need light mobile tracked vehicles for any purpose, the Vietnamese still use theirs and rejected an Israeli uparmor offer because of weight. Their M113s do nicely in jungle. The US is permanently finished with jungle combat and now Viet Nam is a client IMO we should give them all our M113 then make money off support contracts.

>>32358637
>Don't talk to retards. They think APCs and IFVs are the same thing. Or that we should turn all APCs into IFVs

That's not a bad idea since Puma can be modded to carry an 8 man squad. Cheap light battle taxi APCs made sense in the Cold War, but since we need very heavy armor to defeat IEDs the weight and center of gravity would be suitable for added weapons. Manned turrets are a waste of space and armor but there are plenty of alternatives.

Of course specialty "APC" which would be crippled by armament don't need it.

>>32358626
The most recent FM came out like six months ago, and had the 2x2 setup. I would suspect that it might be local budget constraints rather than a complete forcewide thing.

>>32358685
Because retarded countries, read: non yuropoors, have a better doctrine and are about tree fiddy times as maneuverable and effective at combat. It's actually a simple concept to understand.

>>32358716
>How good is army maintenance?

Depends on how well funded that unit is. Garrisoned ABCTs have shit funding. Meanwhile units overseas get a much broader range of logistical spending.

Tanks stationed on Fort Hood piss oil and sit on your "electronic report" as needing new parts for months. We have been as low as 10% ready.

Tanks in Korea will have parts come in by the truck load to maintain 90-100% unit readiness.

>Does the army part out shit vehicles to fix others
Of course. If a voltage regulator goes out D14, they are going to take one out of D24 that's been needing a engine for a month. What's that? The commanders CEU is down in D66? Takr one from D24.

>Failure of all AFV programs
>we use the German gun

Fun Fact 2: the Abrams SEP program has kept the M1A2 on the slicing edge of modern tank technology.

Fun Fact 3: The Abrams is the more lethal then the Leopard iI.

>>32357373
I am going to stop you and make you think about the issues with arming vehicles with a red cross on the side.

>>32350963
why would you post a picture of some random bush, anon

>>32358084
Does your "girlfriend" think it is a comedy or documentary?

>Fun Fact 2: the Abrams SEP program has kept the M1A2 on the slicing edge of modern tank technology.

Except for having no APS...while enemy ATGW proliferate. Trophy is thoroughly combat proven but the US Army are apparently waiting on Raytheon.

>>32359076
She doesn't know what to make of it. I'm trying to explain the differences between the A and B variant and she got lost along the way

>>32358716
Vietnam still uses its M113's because they don't have the money for anything better. They still have ASU-85's in service.

>>32359090
At least try to keep up to date.

File: 8cac205b1968ddfc357a39f9bd5c98a6.jpg (46KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x360px

>>32349240
We already looked into it.
The problems the US found were: better mobility than the Bradley, but by a mere 4% (other options from the GCV + alternatives were better), and inferior firepower than the Bradley by 36%. A few other things but those were the major sticking points.
It was a better vehicle than the Bradley, but only by 6% overall. Not enough to justify purchase.

>>32359122
Which vehicle are you talking about that has an A and B variant, because it is not a Bradley.

>>32359183
So its actually less capable than the current Bradley with the new engine by those metrics.

What is so special about tracks? 4wd works just fine, why not just redesign an MRAP to not be so fucking tall or heavy?

>>32359292
Do you know why an MRAP is tall?

>>32359090
Go on? Who gives a shit about the price of tea in China? We haven't needed APS, and still don't. The Abrams has had hard points for it, and the software for years. If we faced an actual threatening enemy we would mount one. It's also not as reliable as the hyperbolic memes always spout it to be. For various reasons. Weather if its an inability to defeat top down attack munitions, or kinetic rounds (inb4 it can), etc.

Also get this, the Leopard lacks an APS too, and any tank that does equip it underperforms in other vital areas. Usually in its armor. As if, the APS's only purpose is a stop gap for shitty armor designs? Because slapping ERA on everything doesn't work anymore?

The same modern Army's that don't use APS also field tanks that can stop over 90% of ATGMs anyway. Further high lighting it being a retarded redundancy. Let's spend about a billion dollars to decrease our losses by 5%.

If modern tanks were paper armored I'd say something different. But they aren't.

>>32359373
>Circular logic: the post

>>32359090
Also, your one straw grab point didn't prove my premise wrong. The M1A2 SEP V2 and V3 have made many improvements over other nations designs. From FBCBs, 3rd gen DU armor, next gen thermal view intensifiers, the latest and greatest APFSDS to enter service (M829A4), and so on and so forth. The US Army has been dumbing billions in keeping the Abrams at the front of the pack. For fucks sake, the Challenger hasn't been upgraded in 19 years, is just now getting a life extension, and the Leopard and C2 both lack any kind of C4ISR. In addition of course, to still being less lethal tanks in the fire power department.

>>32359310
to get it away from the mines.

this tracked vehicle isn't tall.

>>32359402
Idk how I'll recover. Sure showed me.

File: tWyXzhw.jpg (189KB, 1194x827px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1194x827px

>>32357556
>>32358363
Not him, but the unmanned turrets don't take up space internally

I agree that putting it on command/ambulance/mortar carrier variants is dumb, but they could have a vehicle with more troop capacity AND firepower to support them. It's already been tested on a Bradley chassis

>>32359522
>the unmanned turrets don't take up space internally
Then how do they turn? How are they attached to the vehicle?

>>32359133
Who else makes tracked jungle capable vehicles that can swim and have ground pressure that light? Australia retained M113 for the same reason and they rebuilt and upgraded theirs despite having other options. We can laugh at the gooks. What do they know about jungle warfare? :)

OTOH Aussies are mostly white and fairly intelligent:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-m113-apc-family-upgrades-05133/

In any case for the US jungle warfare beyond special anti-drug operations is obsolete. We are gradually dumping M113 on people who can actually use it, like the Philippine defense forces. Everyone wins. The US needs much heavier APC/IFV options because an IED can flip an M113 due to its light weight and all tracked vehicles must be designed with mines in mind. We can afford to trade mobility for weight, and if a suitably heavy AFV cannot go somewhere we can leave them behind and send trucks instead. We will still have thousands of HMMWV even after JLTV is fielded, and unarmored HMMWV are light enough to do OK off road.

File: doubleV_0.jpg (179KB, 750x1006px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 750x1006px

>>32359469
Partially correct, they are tall because the V hull forces them to be tall.

It is why double V hulls are a thing as they are not as tall.

>>32359541
They stick a ring on top and use that to rotate
See the gap here: >>32359522

File: 9239c46eb702.jpg (328KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1600x1200px

>>32359541
Unmanned turrets are basically giant Remote Weapons Stations

File: qkezz.jpg (177KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x600px

>>32359577

File: dragoon_3.jpg (436KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 2048x1536px

>>32359541
The same way a RWS does, everything is on the roof there is no turret basket.

Pic related, a Stryker with the 30mm turret.

>>32359522
Depends on the unmanned turret

>>32359546
>he doesn't know Australia is going to replace its M113's soon

File: do-suc-manh-xe-boc-thep-chien-dau-stryker-dragoon-cua-my-hinh-2.jpg (60KB, 760x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 760x500px

>>32359617
The Protector MC-RWS that the Army is equipping Strykers with is completely separate from the inner hull

>>32359688
I'm aware. However, that is not the only unmanned turret in use. Many of them do in fact extend into the hull.

>>32359700
one is a remote weapon station and the other is an unmanned turret

>>32359292
>What is so special about tracks?

Lower ground pressure than wheels with much simpler drivetrain and suspension. Modern band tracks like the Soucy that Canadians use work quite well and have excellent cross country performance.

Wheels however can be blown off and the vehicle can still move. Break a track and it's a mobility kill. No one likes working on tracks because it's an enormous amount of effort.

>Let's spend about a billion dollars to decrease our losses by 5%.

That would actually be cost effective. A billion is chump change and losses are politically important despite life being cheap. US force have to win with the lightest and least mediagenic losses possible. That's why billions more than the cost of downed pilots is spent on CSAR.

> If we faced an actual threatening enemy we would mount one.

Only if there were enough years lead time to build them before the fight. We don't "face" ANY enemies at the moment except a few Taliban who don't live in tank country. I guess we don't need to prepare for surprises, though they could be as embarrassing as sending naked trucks and HMMWV into Iraq to be lit up.

Meanwhile Jihadists elsewhere kill older Abrams with ATGW. The Saudis especially have been unpleasantly surprised. Ragheads are expendable but it would suck for US forces to be caught napping over a mere billion or three or four.

>and any tank that does equip it underperforms in other vital areas.

The only widely fielded tanks with APS are Merks. Where does APS make Merks underperform and why is Israel expanding Trophy if it's useless? They don't have money to waste (Israel is tiny) and are fitting it not only to Namer but other vehicles. Merk and Namer are hardly under-armored.

>>32354451
>Nobody needs an APC nowadays

So you ARE retarded

>>32359653
I know they are replacing them, I was mentioning why they USED them.

I'm not an M113 advocate. They are obsolete for most uses. The US doesn't need tracks in their light role and should buy Strykers for that.

>>32359793
The US isn't buying AMPV's for light roles.

>>32359775
>That would actually be cost effective.

And that is just accounting for training one non conscript soldier.

>>32359807
When the reality of money sinks in they won't likely have enough AMPV and Stryker could take up the lighter M113 missions.

It ain't over until the last one actually rolls off the line. Procurement changes often.

>>32359807
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bae-systems-presents-first-ampv-prototype-to-us-army

>While AMPV is slated to replace 2,897 M113 vehicles for the Army’s ABCTs, there are still 1,922 M113s in use supporting Echelons Above Brigade (EAB) that the service eventually wants to replace.

>>32359829
I don't think you have any comprehension of what Strykers and AMPV's cost, or what the US Army's budget forecast is like.

>>32354413

https://youtu.be/C1sN52CBKi4?t=746

>>32359847
>ABCT
>light role

Forced reliance on M113's is a hindrance to the ABCT's role, and that is not accounting for the decreased logistics of every tracked vehicle besides Abrams and M88's being Bradley based.

>>32351144
Are those wedges in the back fuel tanks? Does the thing have internal fuel tanks?

>>32359550
wont the intersection of the double V channel the explosive force into the center of the hull?

>>32360403
Yes those are external fuel tanks. On a normal Bradley they are under the floor which is good for maneuver warfare but bad for IED's.

>>32360662
The point of V hulls is to slow vertical acceleration.

>>32340681
He is a retard who makes shitty videos.

>>32338322
M113 sucks ass
T. Guy who uses 113

>>32339152
YES MUH DICK

>>32361208
>T. Guy who uses 113

What breaks most on 113? Reading complaints about them is common, but what's unreliable or defective about them?

Especially, what do they do that you don't want their replacements to do? Engine failures? Transmission?

>>32359183
>compare AFVs
>didn't compare their armo
Why do Americans fail in armored vehicles design so hard?

>>32359373
>We plan to fight only afghan tier opposition without ATGMs the post

>>32360662
Yes.

>>32340646
>Let me guess can't be air dropped, costs too damn much for what it's worth.

The US doesn't seriously plan to air drop AFV no matter what they say. They are too expensive to lose to accidents in training, let alone combat. It's easier and safer to train to seize an airhead then fly in fighting vehicles. After the famous C-130 crash LAPES is no longer an option either, but modern air assault is (really) for attacking goat fuckers we can suppress. Like contested beach assaults, we need the option so any enemy has to plan for us using it, but it's generally a bad idea.

>>32349423
They would be scrapped to keep them from competing with new vehicle sales to foreign governments, like the US essentially forced Switzerland to do.

BTW if wiring is a problem it would be easy to swap out (I've worked on an A2 with a private DoD contractor) so wiring should never have been a problem in the first place. Shitcan harnesses, install new, done. A small contractor team could do it easy at MATES facilities without tying up G.I. labor. AFV wiring is a joke compared to aircraft and aircraft wiring mods/harness replacement is done locally all the time by depot teams.

There is no "normal' pricing because they are no longer produced, just modified. The Brits are cool with civilians owning milsurp tracks, but the US stopped that sometime after WWII. M113 are rare collector pieces when you can find an early, legal one. They go well over 100K dollars to collectors.

I speculate that the Army wants to kill M113 by "benign neglect" since there is no excuse for breaking except poor design or poor maintenance. M113 is the most successful, versatile US AFV which is why so many were built. It's impossible to tell because there's no publicly available maintenance data.

M113 is too light for serious dozer work even with the kit which is mostly for making berms. They could be modded into civilian wildland firefighters like M548. Aberdeen + NASA did firefighting conversions.

Example conversion of M548 developed by Roscommon. All their info is free to interested departments and they deal with a variety of surplus vehicles including fuel tanker truck conversions. Cool site.

http://www.roscommonequipmentcenter.com/Project%2060_M548%20and%20M1015%20Full%20Tracked%20Vehicle.pdf

M548 conversions are fairly popular and removing the aft hull of an M113 while keeping the armored cab would produce a tracked "brush truck" capable of driving through burnovers that would (and have) destroyed wheeled fire engines. You can cut 5083 aluminum with a cold saw easily, or even a commercial worm drive Skilsaw. Most US fire departments are poorly equipped for wildland firefighting or rescue and M113 are free (recipient department pays shipping or sends a flatbed to Camp Shelby) but the Recession ended the company I was working with.

>>32363370
Since they wanted to justify the stryker purchase, they couldn't be uparmoring & using M113's

>>32363729
M113A3 has armor thickness comparable to Bradley, but not very many were produced. Most creative M113 upgrades are by foreign military industries but they have different realities. A3s also have external fuel tanks which took forever. The Cong knew to shoot the left rear quarter to incinerate 113s but nothing was done about that for decades. Non-A3 113s are still tracked Molotov cocktails. Didn't matter as a NATO battle taxi but matters everywhere else in global police work.

It's pretty easy to upgrade M113 performance with proven components. Davis adjustable suspension gets rid of the torsion bars, improves XC speed about 20-percent, is much more comfortable, and frees torsion bar floor space for ballistic filler or other armors. Power pack choices abound. Hybrid and electric versions have been tested long ago because the box hull makes a comfy development platform. One hot rod test bed was fitted with two Ford big block gas engines to see how much XC speed could be gotten with an otherwise stock hull and suspension. It did 70 mph.

It's too small and light though and no tech upgrades fix that.

Also the drivers hatch appears to be designed for midgets. I'd hate to have to escape through one while wearing body armor.

>>32364446
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf
>The M113A3 was designed to provide protection against a standard 7.62mm threat.
Bradley started with 14.5mm protection.

>>32363370
>The Brits are cool with civilians owning milsurp tracks, but the US stopped that sometime after WWII.
Actually, they've changed that, you can buy Surplus HMMWVs again.

>>32364736
I said TRACKS, not trucks.

>>32364657
I said "as thick" which is not the same as "designed".

Both are inadequate today since they don't protect against main gun rounds or ATGW. Most enemy tanks will be killed by the Air Force or Army helicopters so expect the enemy to spend on missiles instead. There is no place to hide in the desert or mountain areas infested by the Muslims we'll be fighting for the next century. Mountains are a bonus the Houthis exploit to take out Saudi vehicles with impunity, but of course KSA vehicles are manned by typical Arab human garbage. US air support makes high angle fires unnecessary. Saudi air support not so much.

Beware of contempt for ATGW. Israel paid dearly in Merks because they were convinced of their own awesomeness. Russia, China and Iran won't stop developing better anti-tank weapons because it's so profitable. As improved top-attack weapons hit the marketplace we'll have to add even more weight to AFVs. One day Namer may appear as absurdly tiny as M113 is today.

Truth be told we could probably skip all AFV upgrades besides advanced armors and APS for fifty years. Large tank battles are ancient history and we have total air dominance in small wars. 73 Easting may as well be the Crimea for all it matters in 2016.

We will win the battles one way or the other. We may not win the objective but that's Washington's fault for choosing the missions. Fortunately the US is rich enough to afford failure in Viet Nam, Iraq, elsewhere in the Middle East, and A-stan.

We can afford eventual invasion of Iran to take out their nukes should it come to that.

We are so rich we can afford to lose or draw wars with no home front disruption of consequence. That's real power. We can wage war as policy experiment with no skin in the game.

>>32366663
lasers are going to counter the hell out of ATGM's
soon

>>32366663
Also: The US is not rich at all anymore
The US is on the verge of breaking up actually
It's survival has been extended because Trump came out to win, but a white minority US will not survive long

>>32366956
Go back to /pol/

Lasers will counter some ATGMs, but there are anti-laser countermeasures so the race will continue.

>>32366956
>Also: The US is not rich at all anymore

GDP and global manufacturing rank indicates differently. There is nothing to indicate breakup. No precursors, and the US has been through much more disruptive change in the 1960s.

The sky isn't even close to falling or we'd have things like, you know, EVIDENCE. Waves of butthurt on social media are not more than that.

The rest of the Americas except Canada are white minority countries and may have missed the memo about mandatory failure.

No one is "poor" in the Third World starvation sense in the US. Our poor are fat and bought off by welfare as they should be on the way to post-scarcity. Our demographics are such that we don't have a time bomb like Japan or China. American plebs lately are disgusting pessimist bitchass little girls, but the economy has solidly recovered to the point where there are skilled worker shortages in some states, mine included.

We are living in an era of global peace, a few tiny wars excepted. Mankind has never been more prosperous overall. For some reason senile American Boomers and those they brainwash missed that. There are no existential wars afoot, and the US has no Stalin or Mao ready to swap nukes. Capitalism won, we have no military competitors who matter, crime is low, and by those metrics I argue the US is militarily and socially secure.

File: ammobox-inside-hull.jpg (121KB, 1129x892px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1129x892px

How soon before they put a 30mm unmanned turret on this?

File: butwhy.jpg (33KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x427px

>>32359604
I never understood why they would need this. They already have a machine gun/cannon with great optics. It makes the vehicle so tall. Unless it is like a CITV.

>>32351172
>i bet it carries the same amount of americans inside, only adjusted for "modern body meassures"

You aren't far off. Look at pics of G.I.s when M113 was designed, pics of them in its heyday in Viet Nam, then look how much gear they wear today. 1950s driver hatch designs are too fucking small, and more soldiers work out today.

>>32347028
I want gas the jews and all, but the Namer gets my dick hard.

>>32367673
It acts as the commanders sight/gun

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

25KB, 550x314px

We're overthinking these APCs.

Why not just take some old M-60s and turn them into Kangaroo Carriers?

>>32367593
>and the US has been through much more disruptive change in the 1960s.
?
The change has been ongoing since the 60's
Whole cities have been destroyed or turned into foreign colonies

The evidence is all around us, though we have accepted it as "normal"

South America is a shithole salvaged only by occasional dicatorships or mass murder of leftists, as average IQ continues to decline in the US things will start to look more like brazil.

File: Namer pre-production prototype at firepower trial, photo by Marsh Gelbart .jpg (437KB, 1600x890px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1600x890px

>>32368369

the problem with kangaroos is that if you're just selling a turretless M60 version you have to climb up and over the hull to get in or out, which may prove a problem if troops have to dismount under fire as compared to a ramp-equipped traditional apc.

there's less of an excuse when the israelis managed to turn old T-55s into apcs by moving around the engine to fit a ramp.

>>32368748
You're a fucking idiot. You know when poverty zone isolation and concentration of blacks started? Well before the Civil War.

File: frodo.png (214KB, 400x399px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 400x399px

>>32368922
Why not just flip the gearbox backwards and drive the tank in reverse?

>>32369047
>its all whiteys fault that every majority black area in the world is a disaster

>>32337967
Is this the troop carrier version or the commander/medic version?

>>32370650
This must be what they teach you guys in the Klan rallies.

>>32363252
Your lack of reading comprehension is a bigger concern.

>>32370736
>I can't counter what he said, better call him a racist

>>32371146
Hey, when he says something that's blatantly wrong and literally in the textbook racist claims, I'll call a spade a spade.

>>32371179
>Reddit

>>32371392
>>>/pol/

>>32371179
You keep doing it.

>>32371756
Doing what? Not letting him get away with blatant lies?

>>32371798
Which lie would that be?

>>32348103
>Namer Protection isn't better then a m113
Is this what autism looks like?

File: 4chan Ride.gif (87KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 300x100px

>>32372042
Yes anon. Yes. All aboard.

>>32359122
>A and B variant

Uhh I think you're the one getting lost along the way pally