M113 VADS

>>32602345
*Front-engined, not front runner. Fuck autocorrect.

>>32602345
Any IFV can fill that role without wasting huge ammounts of ammunition.

at first I was like
>What good is it going to do you if you're going to run out of bullets in like 5 seconds?

but then I was like
>But there's an awful lot of room there in the back

>>32602374
>When it ends up weighing 100 tons fully loaded because it has 20,000 rounds of ammunition in the back and nobody in the logistics corps gives a shit after the first time they watch it cut a building in half with the GAU-8

It would be the best US armed forces recruitment tool since the F-14.

>>32602345

We already have something that spits little cannon rounds and carries people, it's called a Bradley.

>>32602558
yeah but it doesn't have a gau-8

>>32602583
This. the M2's "gun" might as well be a 10/22 compared to what the VADS swung.

>>32602583

Yeah because that weapon is as large as the Bradley. It isn't physically possible to put it inside of one.

It also isn't necessary. If you can't kill something with five rounds of 25mm, you aren't going to kill it with thirty rounds of 30mm. You're just building a giant vehicle to carry a giant gun and its giant ammo, all for the pleasure of throwing more lead downrange than is actually necessary. This is some Yamato-tier thinking.

>>32602609

The VADS had a 20mm weapon. The GAU-8 is 30mm. The Bradley's is 25mm.

Just google stuff if you don't know what you're talking about.

>>32602345
paper thin armor. you're supposed to gtfo as soon as you take contact then retreat while the infantry you just dropped saves your ass before pushing forward.

>>32602345
>Imagine being able to clear ISIS-held buildings in a city with a steady stream of 20mm DU at 3000 rounds/minute, and all from the comfort of an armored box that will protect you from most anything they might throw at you.


Is managed to reckt a lot of T-72s which are substantially better armored than the aluminium piece of shit m113 which can be penetrated by 50BMG already. Buta assuming you make a vehicle that is 50BMG AP round proof all around and has a 50BMG minigun pls is able to lauch maybe 4-6 RPG-7 style grenades to defeat heavy concrete you may encounter in a city I'd agree, it would make for a great urban assault vehicle.

>>32602583
>>32602609
>let's just give every infantryman a belt-fed, fully-automatic .22 gatling gun
>because the only thing that matters is how quickly you can shoot!

>>32602636
>>32602679
>implying the rule of cool doesn't apply to real life
fucking nerds

>>32602672
>Buta assuming you make a vehicle that is 50BMG AP round proof all around and has a 50BMG minigun pls is able to lauch maybe 4-6 RPG-7 style grenades to defeat heavy concrete you may encounter in a city I'd agree, it would make for a great urban assault vehicle.

We have that, it's called a tank.

Tanks are actually way better than this weird fantasy piece of shit you've invented, though. Try 40+ rounds of 120mm and three (often four, now) machine-guns, many of which can suck up a few RPG's or even sometimes an ATGM before they pop.

>>32602692

Autismobiles are not 'cool'. They are childish and silly. This whole thread is furiously jerking it to something that you might have seen in a hastily-designed GI Joe set from the late 80's, not a combat vehicle that is actually interesting or useful in any way.

>>32602694
you don' get it do you? this vehicle is tank support with massive, basically ww2 AA gun ability to raise the gun and shoot hadjis atop tall buildings while they are trying to top attack tanks with rpgs as seen in recent conflicts. you can't raise a tank gun to basically 90°, this gun you could.

>>32602752

You don't need to design, build, and field a completely new and unique vehicle to shoot someone on the top of a building.

>>32602773

in Fallujah they just used helicopters for this...or they'd shoot the building from a distance. you don't have to be directly underneath a building full of enemies to shoot at it.

>>32602773
you do if you are sending in tanks into a concret jungle city, as seen in syria and chechnia. Also, it is generally a great vehicle for low intensity insurgency warfare too.

>>32602785
>>32602773
>you don't have to bla bla

yeah, you can nuke a city too.
the US military started the war on terror slicing the pie too but after that proved to be bullshit fantasy la-la-land police crap for DC, Chicongo and NY, they stopped and instead first threw a bunch or grenades into the building and/or called in an artillery strike to level the place.

point is, a support vehicle that is alway behind the tank monitoring high places is a faster solution than helicopters and arty.

Can't most modern ifv elevate to near 90° already?

File: nine MGs.jpg (50KB, 600x455px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x455px

>>32602694
>three (often four, now) machine-guns

You are like a little baby. Watch this.

File: YgSmfzs.jpg (115KB, 1022x768px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1022x768px

>>32602694

Tanks have proven they have failings in cities without infantry protection though.

A lot of concepts from the middle of the cold war era were basically tank protection vehicles, with HMGs or Autocannons capable of high-angle fire, mostly built off SPAAGs or SPAAG designs. They were intentionally to protect the tanks in urban settings where infantry dismount would be either impossible or wouldn't be able to advance fast enough; you see these mostly coming out of the Soviet bloc and European nations.

The concept got popular again after the 1st Chechen war and OIF/OEF, but nothing ever vame of them. Russia got in on it with the ZSU-23-4 Afghanski, which proved to be more of an adaptation for the mountains of Afghanistan to replace the tanks normal fire support role, and the BMPT. Some ZSU-57-2s were dragged out of stowage and given pseudo-applied armor for Chechen service in the 1990s even.

That said the ideas merit has never been proven in real combat, besides furthering the known that SPAAGs are very effective at engaging light and unarmored targets and suppressing formations. OPs idea is silly. If he wanted to debate the lack of an American SPAAG in their current TOE then thats one thing but hes really just talking about having an IFV or a Tank, something that already is a thing.

gatling guns are a huge waste of ammo for ground forces. They are only good for if you have an extremely short window to engage your your target with, which means missile defense or aircraft. use a chain gun, or, for the scenario you described, just blow the building up with HE, you retard.

>>32602802
>>32602859

It's pretty telling that the only two methods you think work for shooting someone at the top of a tall building is:

1) Shooting them from directly underneath the building using a vehicle designed expressly for this purpose

2) Nuking the city

When you could, instead, just use the things we already have in the way that we already do.

Your need to take this conversation to the most extreme and most childlike conception possible is something that I sincerely hope you get over. You're just spinning your wheels at this point.

>>32602886

No, because that's not a necessary capability.

All you have to do is shoot at the building with anything else from any other point on earth that isn't "directly below the building loaded with enemy anti-armor weapons". This is simply not as complicated as the yahoos on this thread are making it out to be.

>>32602937
>Tanks have proven they have failings in cities without infantry protection though.

Then give them infantry protection. For fuck's sake, how is ANOTHER VEHICLE supposed to make up for a lack of infantry? And why would you be sending vehicles all on their own into an urban environment? They can't take ground, they can't clear buildings. They're vehicles!

This is something the entire world already figured out almost a century ago, how is it that you haven't gotten the memo yet?

>>32602976
Or, if being shot at from almost directly above is that big of an issue, stick another fifty in a high-angle mount on the turret. It's not like you have too much Ma Deuce.

>>32602976
>It's pretty telling that...

I'll refer you to >>32602937 who summed the situation up quite nicely.

>All you have to do is shoot at the building with anything else from any other point on earth that isn't "directly below the building loaded with enemy anti-armor weapons". This is simply not as complicated as the yahoos on this thread are making it out to be.

>our dudes are being shot at by hadjis on the tenth floor of building x, we are pinned down
>call in arty/A-10 CAS!
>this stuff has been known to never result in friendly fire
>OH WAIT!
>our dudes died due to support fire a. being too late or b. being too inaccurate
>if only we had a 90° raiseable 50BMG minigun this could have been prevented!
>yes but what madman could even conceive of such a thing?

....

>>32603032

Your green text sounds like the intro to a saturday morning cartoon.

Unfuck your head, kiddo.

>>32603032
Miniguns exist for shooting at or from aircraft when you only have split seconds to fire. Putting one on the ground is pointless

>>32603057
>>32603057
>Miniguns exist for shooting at or from aircraft when you only have split seconds to fire. Putting one on the ground is pointless

>hadjis stalking around, hiding behind heavy urban concrete are easy targets you don't need a fast gun to shoot with

pls stahp

>>32603083
And the difference between the time the trigger is pulled and the time the gun actually fires on a mini-gun vs Ma Deuce makes absolutely no difference. Especially when you factor in reaction time and the time it takes to traverse the weapon.

File: Abrams SPAAG.jpg (57KB, 600x477px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x477px

>>32602987
>Then give them infantry protection. For fuck's sake, how is ANOTHER VEHICLE supposed to make up for a lack of infantry?

See:
>They were intentionally to protect the tanks in urban settings where infantry dismount would be either impossible or wouldn't be able to advance fast enough; you see these mostly coming out of the Soviet bloc and European nations.

These nations had a far more pessimistic view of CAS and infantry support in the intense urban fighting as a whole generally than the US and UK for some reason or another. They included, but were not limited to, CBRN hazards, intense infantry to infantry combat that would not be permissive to dismounted infantry keeping up with the armored advance, an unwillingness to destroy the infrastructure of the area, and an inability for infantry small arms to be effective at engaging enplaced infantry in buildings, or a lack of range of these arms.

>>32602987
>And why would you be sending vehicles all on their own into an urban environment? They can't take ground, they can't clear buildings. They're vehicles!

The idea was not necessarily to take buildings or the urban environment per se, at least in the grand scale im speaking of, but to pass through it, encircle it, and deny resupply.

In OIF/OEF and Chechnya, it was a similar situation that insurgents in tall, hidden places where either infantry couldn't see or infantry couldn't engage and destroy quickly. Tanks lacked the gun rotation speed or angles to engage, lacked the fire rate to suppress, or otherwise.

They fill a very, very narrow niche which is why most of the solutions you see to these are ad hoc or never made it to the production line.

>
This is something the entire world already figured out almost a century ago, how is it that you haven't gotten the memo yet?

I did, im just saying there is a preexisting concept for this.

>>32603113
Its about the general idea, not the specific weapon

Yak-B 12.7mm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-B_12.7mm_machine_gun

is a thing you know.

as far as traversing goes, yeah, you'd need a smart suspension system.

>>32603142
But the question is, why build a dedicated vehicle for one narrow niche when you can just add a pintle mount to a regular tank and call it a day?

...
You aren't a mechfag by chance are you?

>>32603132
The tanks don't go anywhere until the infantry has been cleared out, or at least suppressed. The Russians didn't do combined arms and entire regiments got thrown into the meat grinder.

File: 1479532794881.jpg (503KB, 1156x887px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1156x887px

>>32602345
>Why did we never replace it?

>>32602583
>GAU-8
what crack are you smoking, it's a M61 which is the fraction of the size.

>>32603510
>Linebacker
>Also Retired

Has a ZSU ever downed a western fighter jet?

This always reminds me, why no .50bmg Gatling gun? Come on America! It was the match made in American Heaven!

>>32603838
It exists. Nobody bought it

>>32603838
>This always reminds me, why no .50bmg Gatling gun
That's what the GAU-19 is.

>>32602345
I have no idea what I'm talking about so here we go

The VADS was never replaced because:

1) Doctrine. US military seems to be focusing on missiles and air superiority rather than ground AA vehicles, why waste money when you already have the high ground

2) Logistics: Why bother purchasing a shit ton of 20mm when it will likely never be used, and you've got Stingers and Patriots anyway? Oh, screw the ground pounders, 50 cal can take care of the allahu akbars

3) Need: There isn't a big war on. The enemy usually doesn't have a significant air force. So, no need for Anti-Air.

That's all i can think of. Someone correct me.

>>32603816
Yes