Is there a better APC/IFV/Tank/Recovery Vehicle/scout vehicle

Gavins are the greatest vehicles ever made.

>>32571007
Yes. The AMPV aka a steel Bradley.

Roughly 70% bigger interior and more reliable.

The M113 was a good vehicle for its time, but its time was over long ago.

>>32571007
>http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/tank-goodness-at-last-army-bae-roll-out-ampv-to-replace-56-year-old-m113/

File: TLAV.jpg (55KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 696x392px

>>32571007
the TLAVs were a massive upgrade to the M113 platform

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/tlav-shines-in-afghanistan

>"let's call them Gavins"
>"The Gavin is the best machine ever developed"
>"We need to replace our up armored-roadbound HMMWV's with Gavin's to prevent IED deaths!"

Seriously get back to fucking combat reform, the M113 is under armored, and slow as well as waaaaay out of date and unsuitable for asymmetric warfare.

>>32571253
can cofirm 113's are shit tier, pmcs those fuckers every monday

File: Cz03r3YVIAAmQGR.jpg (503KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 2048x1363px

>>32571007
Yes, its replacement.

File: better than a gavin.jpg (156KB, 622x415px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 622x415px

>>32571007
Yes, it is called the LMTV.

It is faster, better offroad, fords decently (but doesn't float) and carries way more troops with almost the same protection (none).

It even has the same armament, a turret ring with a .50cal.

File: 20151021adf8160650_176.jpg (89KB, 750x420px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 750x420px

>>32571007
what up slut

>>32571007
the bmp-1

>>32571007
/SG/ Sparky General?

>>32571007
>Is there a better APC/IFV/Tank/Recovery Vehicle/scout vehicle than the M113?

Too many to name.

>Is it even possible to improve it?

I don't know, how about not making it an obsolete, unreliable-by-curent-standards, undermotorised aluminium box that will fucking burn to the ground on the first RPG hit every time?

>>32573041
>coffin on wheels

>>32575679
That's the btr-60
the BMP is an acronym for "Бpaтcкa мoгилa нa пeхoтaтa"

add twin-linked lascannon sponsons and a twin-linked heavy bolter.
done.

File: cv9030n.jpg (204KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1024x683px

/thread

>>32571007

Try actually working on one of those fuckers; they require airplane-levels of maintenance for what is ultimately a box on tracks.

File: Starstreak Stormer.jpg (432KB, 1024x864px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1024x864px

>>32571007
>Is there a better APC/IFV/Tank/Recovery Vehicle/scout vehicle than the M113?

Lots

>>32575838
Hah, think i drove that exact vehicle at one point in 2011

File: 1280px-070319-A-5144A-002.jpg (258KB, 1280x840px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1280x840px

It's cube on tracks.... it was was a major jump ahead in tech when it was made. It's base model was able to modded and changed to fit a lot of needs while still using the same base hardware.
Today it's outdated... we can do better armor, powerpack and weapons but it's unlikely we will see a direct replacement.

It found it's niche in battles. They are about exclusive as a rainstorm. And we will probably see troops using these in battles for another twenty years.

There are replacement vehicles out there but M113s are like the DC-3, a unique vehicle in tech development sitting at a sweet spot of technology and design.

>>32576555
it's relatively cheap and does it's designed job. it's a classic example of it's as good as you make it

File: 1480624376566.png (67KB, 900x266px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 900x266px

>>32571007

>>32575744

>google translate fail

Fuck off

>>32571935
Who do you think makes these threads shilling vehicles like the 113 and the Bradley?

File: ypr-765_pri_6_of_9.jpg (151KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 960x720px

>>32571007
>Is it even possible to improve it?

File: 1280px-Dutch_YPR-765_in_Afghanistan.jpg (182KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1280x851px

>>32577114
Improved the looks anyway

File: m1fzfhmat85k.jpg (999KB, 1024x687px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 1024x687px

>>32577123

File: met-een-gepantserde-ypr-van-de-marechaussee.jpg (836KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 3000x2000px

>>32577144

File: 1280px-YPR-765_KMar_photo-7.jpg (284KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1280x960px

>>32577150

>>32576555
Sounds like A-10 to me

File: M2-Bradley - turret less.jpg (174KB, 1577x661px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1577x661px

>>32571007

Slow and thinly armored. I and everyone I knew hated them.

>>32576555
Unrelated to the main topic, but FLCs over IBAs with full neck extendos, over early generation ACUs in UCP, with high cut boots while in the goddamn desert has to be one of the worst combat uniform SOPs ever. So fucking happy I always fought in plate carriers. Wearing all that shit in BCT made it clear how garbage the whole uniform system was.

Mad props to anybody who could actually accomplish anything in all that shit.

>>32576062
UK too poor to afford GPS, need sextant, compass, and hourglass to get location for landnav.

>>32577059
infantry.

File: mt-lb (1).jpg (262KB, 1024x677px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1024x677px

>>32571007
Easily.

File: image.jpg (570KB, 900x1113px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 900x1113px

>>32577662
Guys who have fond memories of not being on foot because of them...

And they have a reason to exist... otherwise we would be back at pre WWI level of troop movement.

>>32576930
>orbital assault
>80 year old gun
errytime

>>32571007
The Gavin is near perfect in terms of ability, tactical adaptibility, and design.

Gavins will be with us for a long time to come mark my words, because quite simply, the Gavin has no equal in it's field (in fact, they might as well just call it "Gavin's Field").

>>32577186
the A-10 was obsolete upon being introduced, which is certainly not the case with the M-113

File: image.jpg (115KB, 600x406px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x406px

>>32575780
If you can't afford pic related

>>32578543
i'm just saying 113's suck at being evac vehicles as opposed to say something with more room. armor really shouldn't be that much of an issue sine the 113 is pretty much just protects from small arms as i understand it. reason infantry shillls for the 113 is bause their setu is different and more spacious

>>32571007

>Is it even possible to improve it?

Yes. Don't make it out of fucking flammable metal that ignites when it gets hit with any explosive.

>seems pretty great

Maybe if you are just facing Sinbads with AKs but it's a deathtrap and was still shit when issued. It only remained relevancy due to who the US fights primarily and the resources they had.

CVR-T was better in every way. Infact every non-USSR vehicle was and even then the USSR tracked APCs were mainly IFVs and their troop carriers were faster and better armed.

>>32578633
There is no vechicle with the designiation Gavin. You are a faggot. Please leave.

>>32578700
fair point

>>32578633

Only reason M113s are even in use is that an AK proof box > 90% of military in the world.

It's been irrelevant and defunct any modern/80s military since inception but it's amazing for armies of AK wielding kebab who can't produce their own AT weapons.

>>32578932
what are rpg's?

File: minim113.jpg (2MB, 2019x1574px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2019x1574px

>>32571007
>all the chromosomes

>>32579255
its a cute

File: image.jpg (33KB, 480x353px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x353px

>>32579255
Looks like it should get cut apart by pic related.

File: AjTZdXX.jpg (144KB, 668x666px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 668x666px

>>32579255
But does it have Good optics?

How much damage have Mike Sparks done?

>>32571007
>Is it even possible to improve it?
there are many different variants with multiple upgrades
engine, tracks, armour and modern tech get put into them
they're still pretty vulnerable vehicle though

>>32579372
none whatsoever, he's a cook whom nobody pays any mind
the M-113 lurches on because it's cheap and plentiful
for some reason the MT-LB never got the same amount of publicity, but it's an equally shitty and equally prolific battle taxi

>>32578932
except just because the US didn't apply any upgrades to the M113, because they wanted to buy the stryker, doesn't mean you couldn't add armor/new engine

>>32580532
Turks (among others) did that. Result is an overpriced, overweight piece of shit

File: IMG_3721.jpg (96KB, 1024x548px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x548px

This one is not M113 derived but watever. I like it because it looks Gundam-y.

>>32578633
The US won't update their fleet and apparently the way they are supported and maintained is insufficient to keep them mission capable. Melting is irrelevant though since if you get the contents hot enough to melt 5083 anyone inside is already very dead. An APC that small is a joke, and arguably any track carrying people should be an IFV unless it's a specialty vehicle. M113 still exists because other programs are more important. They have pretty good mobility but we don't fight where you need a small AFV. Send something light and fast with tires instead. We don't need tracked mobility in any vehicle too light to take large IEDs because the point of tracks is lowering ground pressure of heavy vehicles.

>>32582414
light and tracked is good too

>>32571007
Can't beat the Gavin

>>32582414
>i've never been off-roading in my entire life. mud is a myth to me therefore tracks are useless.