>Be Soviet conscript >Time to dismount from APC >"Aha,

>>32484000
I'm assuming your scenario still stands?

>>32484000
Yeah that apc sucks who cares

>>32484050
Slavboos care.

File: btr-60PB_MD3_Bulgarian_army_Forum_ArmyRecognition_001.jpg (119KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1024x768px

>>32484000
>complains about the door
Bitch the BTR-60 had fuckin' hatch from witch you had to jump off!I would have killed for a btr-70 style assault ramp in my early conscript days.
Thank god we later fixed thats shit.
>Retarded vatniks and their terpentine addled brains.

Still better than humvee

File: photo_11620_1.jpg (162KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 800x532px

>>32484100

At least you niggers had a roof....

Back in my day, we would ride into a nuclear holocaust battlefield with radioactive dust falling down on us, our expected battlefield lifespan was estimated to be 2.4 hours.

>not using a gavin

File: 142874047.jpg (15KB, 540x114px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 540x114px

>>32484000
>dismounting when you have glorious 14.5mm machingun in the NBC protected turret

>>32484000

>As compared to...wait for it
>an M113

Also, roll up, turn hull to enemy, safely pop out of other side.

>be in urban fight
>need to assault building
>pull up right to door
>get out of hatch
>completely covered from fire from all other sides

>M113 pulls up
>AKs penetrate it
>has to awkwardly back up to building
>soldiers get out
>shot at from all nearby buildings

Such is life in NATO.

>>32484899
Jokes on you, AK's penetrate the BTR-60/70 too.

>>32484000
It's APC, not IFV. And damn good APC. Better than M113, anyway.

I dont care

when the zombie apocalypse happens Im closing the hatch and not letting you in no matter what.

dirty western bastard

File: 1465171022547.jpg (118KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x576px

>>32484934

Not the front homie.

>>32484000
Soviet army is big, even with 18% losses during dismounting training, it's better to have 82 good soldiers than 100 untested ones.

File: 9IWPQ8c.jpg (116KB, 1056x692px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1056x692px

>>32484206
Young Tovarisch, you had best not get me started on how good you had it compare what it was like during Great Patriotic War.
While you were sitting in mother's womb- as she plowed fields- we were thankful engine deck of tank kept ass warm.

>>32484940
Depends where on the front you are hitting...just like the m113.

>>32484899
>M113 pulls up
>AKs penetrate it

Citation needed

File: salamander.jpg (102KB, 1149x798px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1149x798px

>>32484998

Do you really think the M113, with its shitty high profile, low speed, crap armor, inability to swim, etc is comparable to the BTR family?

>>32484156
>Still better than humvee

Which is purely a light, not even medium duty, NATO utility truck and not designed for combat though retarded Army leadership failed to anticipate what would happen to light trucks in combat despite Viet Nam, Chechnya, Somalia....

>>32484156
Most things are.

File: 5586027859_e346119805_b[1].jpg (340KB, 1024x708px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1024x708px

>>32485021
Yes

>>32485021

>m113's
>not anfib

wew

Spoilers, the BTR has shit armor too, and a higher profile.

File: UAZ.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>32485020

This is common knowledge. This >>32484998
fag is right too. I can't find a direct source atm, but it's a common experience that these things get torn up from the sides by battle rifles.

>>32485052
>>32484156

Should have just posted pic-related lol. I think BTR > M113, but people going completely off topic for sake of argument piss me off. Humvee was good shit for the time.

>>32485061

I don't believe. Either it couldn't swim or or it was ridiculously, ridiculously slow. I don't remember. It is a shit.

>>32485105
Being anfib was the entire point of the m113.

>>32485087
And 14.5 machine gun.

>>32485109

Just checked wikipedia, apparently 9km/h for BTR70 vs 6km/h for M113.

Hmm, one of the few times on /k/ I might be changing my opinion. Looks like most of what the BTR has on the m113 is low profile.

>>32485122
.50 is fine

>>32485142
m113 has a lower profile.

File: oldNamtrick.jpg (308KB, 2400x1600px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 2400x1600px

>>32485105
>Humvee was good shit for the time.

No, it was a light truck which it remains. HMMWV wheels are a popular bolt-on to pickup trucks because it has a light truck driveline. "Good shit" is not specific, but you are unable to argue facts when defending HMMWV so you didn't. The Jeep and later M151 were not meant to take hits either. Everything is subject to getting shot at today so (fucking DECADES of wars later) we have JLTV.

You probably are unaware of the history of the US Army almost completely forgetting about armoring trucks after the UltraPOGs decided Viet Nam should be internally forgotten because they didn't want to fight that war ever again. Exception is the Transportation museum at Ft. Eustis who preserved one Nam gun truck. Pic related is a Nam mod repeated in Iraq war before MRAP existed.

M113 was and remains highly successful and uparmoring works fine which is why many global users do it. US A3 models are a thing. Some other users upgraded their powerpacks and actually (holy shit) maintain their fleets properly but the US fleet will be left to wither on the vine. We can afford to be rid of light tracks so we eventually will. Steel M113s were tested alongside alumium versions and aluminum was more effective against small arms of the 1960s so it won out.

>I don't believe. Either it couldn't swim or or it was ridiculously, ridiculously slow. I don't remember. It is a shit.

How many more pics of swimming M113 would you like to see? Aris is the best of those but militaries with proper equipment don't need to swim armor so they take legacy "swimmable" AFV and add armor and weapons to make them useful.

M113 have been successfully fitted with a greater variety of weapons than any other FOV. ATGW have rendered light armor obsolete but they had a great run. Now all BTR and M113 will do on modern battlefields is die unless the enemy runs out of Konkurs, TOW, etc.

>>32485311
>Now all BTR and M113 will do on modern battlefields is die unless the enemy runs out of Konkurs, TOW, etc.
Oh wow, really makes me think how there's +500 metres of visibility absolutely everywhere and no dead ground that can be used during tactical maneuvers.

>>32485311
>ATGW have rendered light armor obsolete but they had a great run

ROFL.

ATGMs have rendered fighting with shit tactics obsolete. Ordinary TTPs straight out of the 1980s/70s/50s like clearing areas with infantry or machinegun and artillery suppression or, you know, using cover and speed and leapfrogging instead of sitting in the open like a dead horse...they work fine.

>>32485370
While I was waiting for someone to get the sarcasm, the US military really thinks that way which is why light TAFV programs are permadead.

An Abrams you can't drive through much of the Balkans is good because then you don't have to go where icky, but competent, Serbs might light you up. Best to bomb civilian infrastructure and wait for surrender, so we did.

M113 survives because a shitload were built. There are billions of dollars involved in any replacement and much more important uses for the money than replacing a utility APC with the IFV wave of the future that used to be the wheeled LAV/Stryker/MRAP/etc wave of the future.

All "waves of the future" must result in expanding the Army budget. That makes many proposals unaffordable so the Army waits with legacy systems for the next opportunity. The Army can afford it since the US is under zero combat pressure.

The only extremely vulnerable vehicles we placed under fire were HMMWV and naked supply trucks and we proved those losses are not deal breakers.

> Thread has devolved into M113 v BTR.
> Vatnick/Vatnickoboos saying its better than m113 because of X.
> Fatnicks/ Gavinholes defending m113 by saying at least its not BTR.

The fact of the matter is that objectively the the BTR80 and m113a3 are both good vehicles.

14.5 vs 12.7 is a personal preference.

>>32485752
M113 is already being replaced, its replacement has been built, first production model rolled off the line a few weeks ago.

Its essentially (but not quite) a turretless brad.

>>32484000
Who do you expect to defend this? Like I'm imagining you thinking there's some 1960s soviet conscript here who's going to argue with you over this.

>>32484989
Real talk though, what are those things wrapped around their bodies?

File: 0_6bb1e_27da6fe2_XL.jpg (610KB, 800x1018px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 800x1018px

>>32485752
>M113 survives because a shitload were built.
M113 survives because US industry failed to build a replacement for asked price. And now they invented fucking MT-LB and sell it as gift of the Magi

>>32485974
Well the MT-LB has shit armor and has a completely different role.

File: apcbacklot.jpg (135KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x686px

best APC coming through


dumb ass colonists

>>32485918
>Like I'm imagining you thinking there's some 1960s soviet conscript here who's going to argue with you over this.

Probably a safe bet that there's a neckbeard who is more than willing to play that part for us.

File: 1460399289523.jpg (47KB, 600x502px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x502px

>>32485995

>Mission killed by fucking insect wildlife

>>32484000
This might be a good place to post about this

Does anyone have any real info on these?

http://shadowhawkvehicles.com/hawks

>>32485968
Blankets. There's a name for it, don't know what it is, but basically you roll all shit up in the blanket you sleep in, tie off the ends and wrap it around yourself. Backpack for the poor.

>>32484834
>9 people operating the bananathrower

>>32484206
Does anyone else think one of these would be badass as fuck for an off-road/extreme camping vehicle?

>>32485995
That's a fucking airfield towing truck.