/thg/ Treadhead General

File: T113_APC.jpg (166KB, 1052x852px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1052x852px

>>32963137
OP: As always, feedback, suggestions wanted and appreciated.
Apologies if I haven't gone as extensively into the colourful history of the M113 as much as some of you may have liked. Information on the M113 is so detailed and the range of modifications, deployments and developments so extensive, that I would like to defer these details (particularly the myriad variants and specialisations) to another thread. This thread then, is just a look at the very early origins of the APC. Later on, a look at the APC's performance in theatres such as Vietnam and even later in more contemporary conflicts such as the Gulf Wars may be a possibility as well. In addition, iterative improvements to the M113 in domestic US service ought to be examined as well; I intend to track the M113 from 1960 to 2017 as the AMPV is set to become integrated into the US military.

File: T117_APC.jpg (162KB, 1020x855px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1020x855px

>>32963147
More tank news, as per the new format.
If you have more queries regarding a news story, just point it out, and I'll further elaborate and provide links.

Finland's Patria are now offering an improved variant of the XA 6x6 APC, designated the XA-220. The vehicle now sports a Cummins ISLe 8.9 diesel engine in place of the Valmet as well as an upgraded electrical system and lighting.

Estonia has expressed interest in acquiring K9 Thunder howitzers alongside Finland, to be delivered by 2021 in a batch of 12.

Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (RMMV) is set to deliver 90 Fuchs 6x6 APCs to the German Army that have been upgraded to the 1A8 standard throughout 2017 in a deal projected to be worth at least $107 million USD. The modifications in the package are extensive, from overhauled protection to the addition of a limited number of KMW FLW 200 RWS.

Singapore's ST Kinetics has unveiled plans for a new AFV at the IQPC International Armoured Vehicles Conference 2017 in London, the Next Generation AFV, set to replace the ageing fleet of M113 APCs in the SAF. The fundamental construction of the vehicle appears to be based on an all steel welded hull with modular applique armour powered by an MTU 8V-199 TE20 diesel.

Austria at IQPC has confirmed that it will undertake the wholesale installation of RWS onto a significant part of the Austrian Army's AFVs. No specific type has been confirmed, yet according to IHS Jane's, the Austrian Army had previously expressed interest in the usage of Elbit Systems RWS and its subsequent development.

India's DRDO has revealed that the FRCV's main gun requirement has now been revised to include a 125 mm gun and not the previous 120 mm, while secondary arms are expected to include an air defense machinegun and a third generation ATGW. The FRCV will also be unmanned in its turret, with a three man crew in the hull, powered by a Bharat powerpack.

And that's all for now.

>>32963162
>India's DRDO has revealed that the FRCV's main gun requirement has now been revised to include a 125 mm gun and not the previous 120 mm

Sounds like India doesn't want to develop ammunition for the Arjun's gun that cannot be shared with its T-72/T-90 fleet.

File: ZSU-23-4_Shilka_01.jpg (1MB, 2248x1426px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2248x1426px

does anyone like shilka? i think she's a qt.

File: snapshot.jpg (237KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1280x720px

There are now 18 variants of the Stryker in use by the US military.

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

>>32963162
>The FRCV will also be unmanned in its turret, with a three man crew in the hull,
So they want the t-14? but not the t-14?

>>32964975
>>32963599
Is the Arjun Mk 2 rollout still a thing?

Did we have "The last thread was overpenetrated" already?

File: IMG_3728.jpg (130KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x683px

The M113 lives on. Long live the M113!

>>32965630
>Long live the Gavin!

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

89KB, 750x420px

>>32965630

File: 1899980_540244556099008_2215375739016856858_n.jpg (71KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x600px

this a M113 upgraded by Vietnamese Army with a odd turret

File: file.png (190KB, 614x346px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 614x346px

>>32965798
another upgrade packet by the Vietnamese Army

the vehicle is rearmed with SPG-9, NSVT machine gun and PKM machine gun

File: file.png (325KB, 640x471px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 640x471px

>>32965811

File: file.png (648KB, 760x500px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 760x500px

>>32965817

File: file.png (296KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 450x338px

>>32965827

File: 10394065_536808079775989_4384200822363726583_n.jpg (35KB, 801x444px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 801x444px

>>32965831
NSVT with space grip in a M113

>>32965835
how on earth they still have part for these stuff?

File: A Vietnamese army M113 APC rolling past Angkor Wat during their pullout from Cambodia – January 1st, 1989.jpg (155KB, 1024x666px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x666px

>>32965845
old stock from the South vietnam army
new part from Australia, Jew and other M113 operator that is not the US of A

the Vietnamese People Army operate tons of M113 in the Cambodian–Vietnamese War

>>32963137

the M113 is so fucking classic

>>32965845

they probably fucking make some of the parts for them now I guess

>>32965831

>"recoilless rifles are nigger tier, which idiot put this on here"
>"but comrade general, they are still good!"

File: Su-100-b8484.jpg (100KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 640x480px

>>32965904
>"recoilless rifles are nigger tier,
where is this meme came from?

BTW, Vietnamese SU-100, T-34-85 and SU-100 are still in service

>>32965674
>Gavin
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
SPARKY GET OUT

File: 3815163_original.jpg (224KB, 1040x780px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1040x780px

on the left is the Russian new airborne MRAP
the Typhoon-VDV
there is a version armed with 30mm gun

File: Cheese 1.jpg (222KB, 1120x840px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1120x840px

And a "renovation object".

File: genuine BMP-2.gif (44KB, 367x275px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 367x275px

here's a picture of a BMP-2, nothing special about it, move along

>>32963137

> TFW when you left the British Army in 2012 having done your time, and will never get to bang your shin trying to get out of your Scimitar Commanders hatch again, or 'accidentally' smash the ComBAT screen positioned in the 2ic's hatch, so you go off grid and can't be tracked.

Loved my wee simmy. Piece of shit, broke down all the time and the armour was nothing more than aluminium, but it was helluva a fun all the same.

I remember when we were in Afghan and I spent the entire tour in Jackals, and spent a lot of time driving them (mega fun). Came back, went on a refresher course for the CVR(T). On the tank training area at Bovvy, approaching one of the knife edges in the middle of the area, and I give it a good boost up to reach the top.

>Forgetting that in the Jackal, you would hit the slope as fast as you could and come off the accelerator just at the peak, to which the Jackal would slow to a crawl and then roll down the other side

In a CVR(T), you're meant to stop at the bottom, change gear to 'E' and crawl up it.

>I hit the slope doing about 20mph

>Roar up the approach, hit the summit, come off the accelerator
>Scimitar doesn't slow down
>Can hear the screams of the two lads in the gunners / commanders hatches
>We do an ET off the edge of the knife, tracks are off the ground, this things about forty foot high

>wearegoingtodie.png

>Whole body of the Scimitar starts to tip forward - it's back heavy so up it goes
>I'm staring down at the ground fast approaching

Fuck knows how to this day, but the wagon hits the ground on what must be the last few inches of the front tracks to be facing towards the ground, the back slams down (cracking a road wheel) and we roar off before I slam the brakes on, sweat pissing down my face.

>The instructor who was in the back taking us through our refresh gets out, screaming like a lunatic, climbs down the front deck and starts kicking me in the head

Fun times!

>>32966289

Another one for you...

>In the Gunner Wing in camp, going through the gun drills for the Scimitar. My pal Si and I are inseparable (we were for most of our military career).

>Told to move one of the wagons out the wing and put it in the yard

>I marshal, Si drives.

>Bring him out, then reverse him back up against the wall of the Wing

>Been used to Spartans

>Forget Scimitar has back bin that protrudes quite a bit

>Si looks at me funny and I look at Si funny
>Scimitar appears to be climbing the wall as Si reverses

>Casually signal for Si to stop

>Walk to back of wagon

>Wagon has creeped up the wall, the bin has severed a power duct

>Look round the corner

>All power gone to Gunnery wing, tank park, REME hangar

>Walk back to the front

>Signal for Si to drive forward

>Halt him

>Walk over

>Tell him

>He slowly climbs out

>We go to the camp maintenance guys (third party contractors)

>"Some dickhead has severed the power for the back of the camp.. Any chance you can sort it?"

>Guy comes out, takes a look "FFS... Give me twenty minutes."

>Fixes the cabling, installs an armoured cowl over the whole thing

>MFW we never get bagged for it and no-one knows why the power failed that day (including engines in the REME hangar being stuck mid air on the overhead lifter)

>>32966300

Oh god, alright. One more.

>In Gunnery Wing again, just after Iraq on Telic 10 in 2007

We had lots of IDF in Iraq, about five a day, so we were all quite twitchy about that sort of thing.

>One of the guys was in the wagon doing drills on the MBSGD, loading dummies in, going through the fire drills, etc

>We're sat in a wee office just beside the wagons, just some chairs and a small table with brew facilities

>Almight fucking BANG, CRASH, and a smoke grenade from the wagon comes through the roof of this office and lands in front of us, smoke spewing everywhere

>Full PTSD mode engaged

>People screaming, throwing themselves out windows, I stood on my mate as I jumped out a side window, lads cowering under tables screaming

>Turns out, somehow, a live grenade had got mixed in with the drill rounds and neither the instructor nor the lad doing the drills spotted it. So when he did the fire procedure, off it went

>Both of them got AGAI 67 for negligent discharge and fined a months wages

>I made a little bit of brown in my pants

File: 27923410575_8ba85d749f_b.jpg (238KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1024x683px

>>32966264
vismods are best mods

>>32963668
Sexy beast

GAVIN
A
V
I
N

>>32963147
>>32963162
>>32963137
How interested would you be in doing a breakdown of the insanity that is BlackTail/Sparks and his insane Gavin-ideas?

>>32966348
The man's, well, insane. While often amusingly so, the on topic discussion seems limited to "that's nuts".

>>32965927

>retiring t-34, pinnacle of socialist weaponry

of course they are still going

Anyone have that aerogavin pic?

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

67KB, 900x266px

>>32966591

>>32966598
Wouldnt the 50cal be ripped of during flight?

>>32966615
Thats like the least of the problems behind this acid trip of an idea

>>32966615
it's as strong as the rest of the vehicle

>>32966257
>>32966261
what done this?
14.5mm

>>32966719
.22lr

File: image.jpg (45KB, 480x310px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x310px

swedes did some firing tests with the mjolnir twin top loaded mortar. Apparently the design is variant of very early AMOS prototype.

>>32966719
10mm

>>32966309
>>32966289
>>32966300

Busted a gut. Great shit.

File: M113IStheGavin.jpg (117KB, 672x885px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 672x885px

>>32965928

File: I can see you just dicking around there, Swedes.jpg (155KB, 736x1108px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 736x1108px

>>32966844

The AMOS project was originally started by an amalgam company called Patria-Hägglunds that co-developed the system. Patria was in charge of the mortar systems themselves and BAE-Hägglunds was supposed to handle the initial vehicle integration.

Turned out that Patria had to do most of the integration work, too, as BAE-Hägglunds seemed to have other priorities and funding issues while the FDF was leaning on Patria quite heavily to get the AMOS-AMV in service for their Rapid Deployment Forces.

This lead to the fact that vehicle integration development went AMV first even though the primary testbed was supposed to be the CV90. While BAE-Hägglunds just sort of messed about with a couple of integration designs (mainly CV90, CB90) Patria finished the integration with AMV and even XA-202 AMOS units.

This lead to a lot of saltiness from BAE-Hägglunds that still struggled a bit with their projects mostly due to funding cuts in the Swedish defense budget and their habit of trying to round and soften every rough edge, no matter how minor. Patria was also not pleased as they could not close any export deals with the AMOS system without BAE-Hägglunds approval and intervention.

As it happens, Patria started a new mortar system project purely on their own, which produced the rather successful NEMO system that is already exported to a number of countries, mostly with the AMV.

Also, AFAIK the original Patria-Hägglunds deal has now been or is soon to be outdated and both companies own the rights for their respective systems. This means that Patria is free to export the AMOS system as they see fit and we might finally see it reach bigger markets - it's a fantastic system. Also, BAE-Hägglunds has not much to show from the whole project and as such the only thing they have is an early and "borrowed" (part from Patria during the co-development and the rest from the BAE group, which has bigger fish to fry than mortar systems) project which has become the Mjolnir.

>>32967025
>Some navyfag thinks he know shit about vehicles after reading some of mike sparks works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Schmitz

File: 100_0456.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>32963137
Chilean Army M113's

>>32966348
No one can do it
http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/art/T-64-Premium-Tank-Hoax-158048933?q=gallery%3Ablacktailfa%2F4998468&qo=88

File: cc113.jpg (269KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 800x600px

>>32967086
NEMO was so succesfull that Saudis asked for a container version of it and Patria delivered. Real pics should come in couple months

File: file.png (1MB, 1200x609px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x609px

>>32967392
>Real pics should come in couple months
so pic related is just a mock up and not an operational prototype?

>>32967416
I think it is a working one. Official unveiling is held in Abu Dhabi defense expo this month.

http://www.idexuae.ae/exhibitors/patria?&azletter=P&searchgroup=libraryentry-exhibitors

>>32966844
The Molinjor is significantly cheaper than an AMOS.

File: 39.jpg (216KB, 1100x732px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1100x732px

>>32967481
i think it is the one
it have the same paint skim as UAE Patria AMV prototype

>>32967774
Kinda obvious when it does not have MRSI or electronic FCS

File: Ukrop_magic_tank.webm (438KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1280x720px

>>32967825
they never learn

>>32967840
Are you sure about that?

>>32967849
What are you trying to say, that the optional shield for the commanders hatch restricts rearward movement of the RWS?

>>32967853
Thats what a finnish defence magazine wrote. But the article was also written in very salty way so it remains to be seen.

Wouldnt surprise me if the swedes do it in a way that lets them recycle old ununsed mortar tubes.

File: 23048139572_0cd648c134_o.jpg (4MB, 5184x2916px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5184x2916px

>>32967867
yes
why don't they put it on the TC thermal sight instead?

>>32966318
Kleen King

>>32967909
Because your complaint is a non issue.

>>32967849
The best part of this is the fucking scratch from all the times the gun slid across this thing

>>32967825
CROWS are fucking stupid, the loss of visibility isn't worth having the remote .50.

>>32964079
I was hoping someone would mention this here. What exactly happened? Leos obviously don't have blow off panels so that explains the two that got lollipopped, but did the T*rks just get monkey models of the 2A4 or something?

>>32968098
Turkish F-16's happened.

>>32965927
they actually look pretty well-maintained

>>32968098
turks are losing tanks left and right, like other arab countries. they are also losing positions with unmanned tanks, so they bomb them with f16s

>>32968098
Turks are just fucking shit at war. Doesnt help that Erdogan has purged the people that knew how shit worked.

>>32968353
>turks are losing tanks left and right

All the Leo 2 losses appear to be from a single battle.

File: fj1lk0P.jpg (1019KB, 3600x2700px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 3600x2700px

T-72B3 fire selector

>>32965827
A bit much for a golf cart...

>>32970189
Thales, Sagem... I'd be loath to see that come bite us hard in the ass...

File: 2012tpar040_012_021.jpg (573KB, 2000x1331px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 2000x1331px

>>32970456
Well they sell what is already available in the market. If they don't sell it, they just simply can close doors and go home.
On the other hand I don't see them sell the top of the shelf, just like they did with thermal cameras back when the XL was in production... (I would love to see their sell policy for the paseo sight at the present date).

Here, have some of our chasseurs de Lorraine in the UAE sands

File: 20150531_082411.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>32963137
M113 thread? Guess I'll contibute with some oldies.

File: 20150511_072916.jpg (3MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x1836px

>>32970620

File: 20150806_193307.jpg (816KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

816KB, 3264x1836px

>>32970638

>>32970579
You are right, and I suppose that if push came to shove, they would not supply the enemy with the necessary spare parts. Or at least, I hope.

And hey, oh my look at that, sand. And not even a trigger warning. Reminds me of a nice gem of a story, that involves an admiral and an half-sunk tank in the desert.

>>32970666
.....go on...

>>32970620
>>32970638
>>32970661
As usual, always gorgeous stuff MG!

>>32970666
Yup, just like what happened in Irak with ally hardware (to the point that their SPGs were out far sooner than the coalition started to push).

Oh? Interesting. During an "official" exercise or during inter-ally exchanges?

File: « Vues sur Loire » consacrées à Saumur... Le podcast de Fran.flv_snapshot_09.55_[2017.02.12_22.58.04].jpg (117KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x576px

Quite recent screengrab of the M113 overhauled at Saumur AFVs museum.

>>32967195
Technically, Sparky isn't far off the mark in that article.

>>32970189
Fire selector for what?

>>32968098
>CROWS are fucking stupid, the loss of visibility isn't worth having the remote .50.
It's possible that they're preparing for the short 30 that they wanted to replace the .50 on Humvees. And 30mm ADEN could be worth it, particularly if it lets you dedicate more ammo space to APFSDS.

>>32971650
>I have no idea what I am talking about

>>32970620
>>32970638
>>32970661
Thanks for the pics Merkgunner.

File: LAV III Kodiak.jpg (39KB, 577x352px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 577x352px

>>32964647
Why not just buy LAV III's? There's barely any difference between the two vehicles.

>>32964647
So pretty.

>>32972962
The Dragoon can carry a full squad. that's big

>>32972962
>There's barely any difference between the two vehicles.
>>32971945

>>32971475
Telling the FCS which round to calculate for.

>>32971475
The different rounds have different flight characteristics. For example, a HEAT round is not going to be travelling at the same speed or have the same arc as a sabot round. The fire selector lets you choose which ammunition type you're using.

>>32968098
I dunno, I like the idea of not getting a hole blown in my head by some towelhead with a SKS.

>>32966615
No no no

The will of Mike Sparks is strong, it is incorporated into the M2's mount

File: SAM_3879.jpg?psid=1.jpg (44KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x450px

Question for those more well-versed than I:
How does the Soviet Union go from, in ww2, a nation so obsessed with production and sustainment that it refuses the opportunity to make even major improvements to it's vehicles for fear of upsetting the supply chain, to, in the late '60s to mid '70s, a nation producing three separate MBTs to fill the same role?
Have a mechanical marvel for your troubles.

>>32975778
1. desperation
2. corruption

>>32975778
They weren't in the middle of a war for survival so they could afford to mess with things

>>32968466
>Doesnt help that Erdogan has purged the people that knew how shit worked.

Apparently roaches don't train their enlisted force or junior officers.

>>32975778
>Russian bias

>>32975778
?
The soviet union was not a "nation"

>>32976994
The question anon had is still valid - the USSR, after all, was still a nation state.

>>32977608
no it wasn't
neither is the USA
go look up the definition

>>32977780
W E W
E
W

>>32977608
>>32977780
Okay, what would you call the USSR in terms other than a "state"?

>>32978499
godless communists

>>32970356
What could have caused that much damage?

>>32971046
No, he is really far of the mark and is unironically bashing a article published in 1990 using from 2010 with everything he possible got and making stuff up.

This mike spark clone is saying that the T-64B and T-72A is the same tank and also spout that the T-55AMV existed in 1977 to name a few.

>>32978870
*using knowledge from 2010

>>32978798

To an M113? Probably a light breeze.

>>32968098
>Turks 2A4.
The Leo2s do have blowout panels, but its only for the 15rnd bunker in the turret. The other 30 rounds are stored on the front leftof the hull, opposite of the driver. The winerack isn't protected, its open to the crew compartment. One of tanks I saw had the front left blown off and the turret flew off meaning the winerack got hit.

The A4 is a basic model,it doesn't have any bells or whistles on them. Theres no AP, ERA, laser receivers etc. We (Canada) don't even deploy them overseas since we know they'd get fucked, they're trainers only. But for the Turks, it's their most advanced tank.

>>32963137
>Ahh, the M113, the cutest toaster on tracks to ever grace the world.

File: 1477432467400.jpg (631KB, 1411x1136px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 1411x1136px

>>32978989
>tfw your toast gets burnt.

File: 1448027466849.jpg (223KB, 2048x1437px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 2048x1437px

Hello

File: Call derr furher, I don't give a fuck.jpg (9KB, 199x253px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 199x253px

>>32978921
>The winerack

File: Leclerc_trench_warfare_2.jpg (170KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 960x720px

>>32970456
>>32970579
Siiiigh... i managed to mess with my post twice...

So, frenchfag, which one is yours? I can't see your sexy blue steel eyes anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSxgBVVB1bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1-RQRzS7mk

File: ACV-300_Adnan.jpg (173KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x960px

Grandchild of the M113. Why are they so chibi?

File: ACV-SW.jpg (80KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1024x683px

>>32979472
most APC are chibi

>>32975778
The soviet military industrial complex was HUGE.
And since all military development stuff was secret reducing spending was off limits to civilian administrators. It was also hidden from them, tank-factories were called tractor factories Nuclear missiles were built by "machine plants" etc.

In fact by the time the USSR fell no one really knew how much they spent on their military since it was disguised and hidden even from the politburo. I've heard estimations of up to 25% of their GDP being spend on defense related stuff including r&d

>>32979306
>all those empty, vacant arab eyes

Good luck, Frenchfag

>>32979306
You won't find him in the Gulf 2016 videos since the 5RC was manned by the 1/501RCC up until jan-feb 2017.
Now if you're refering to the next shift, don't expect to see things immediatly. Gulf took place in nov 2016 and videos only came early february.
I don't even think Gulf Falcon was annonced, soo... we can still wait a long time...

>>32979306
>>32980249
Actually, the 1/501 was relieved by the 1/5 Dragoons by the end of September.

>>32970709
>>32970724
A unit might have potentially managed to half-sink a Leclerc in the only pool 50 miles around in the desert. This might have happened while the admiral commanding all French forces in the Indian Ocean was visiting. Unconfirmed sources report that maybe he was enjoying a ride in the tank when it drove right into the muddy, silty water.
One might surmise that it took an ARV and two other tanks with cables to pull it out.

I will not post any picture (should they exist) because my ass would probably be on the line, but dear god are they maybe hilarious.

Also, I'm defo not going to confirm if I participated in GULF 2016 or anything, really wouldn't do me any good to help you pinpoint with even more accuracy my exact whereabouts, position and such.

>>32981725
Dunno if you can answer this or not but how often does shit break in or on the leclerc and how quickly is it rectified/replaced?

File: Chars Leclerc.jpg (59KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x720px

>>32981725
>Actually, the 1/501 was relieved by the 1/5 Dragoons by the end of September.
*Headache*
God damn it's even more complicated than I thought. In addition, you got a squadron of the 12 that go to the UAE, at first I thought it could be a sign of the Gulf Falcon manoeuvers (last time was four years ago (same frequency as the Gulf/Gulf Shield exercises) are near. But not at all...

>Tank stuck in sand.
Shit happens. That's part of the job (military & constructor). This happenned as well to the Giat Industries team near the border with KSA. The tank was stuck and sideways on a dune...(kinda like this XLT used by the 4th dragons) The extraction was more than complicated.

>>32982101
Stuck in the sand, yeh. Stuck in a pool, that's rather rarer.

>>32982345
My bad, misread your post.
Well, depending on where you go in the al hamra area, you can fall in carry, petroleum pit and also some anti tank trenches left by the combat engiineers.

File: 1418894208-m113-gavin.jpg (142KB, 695x596px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 695x596px

I don't think this has been posted yet.

File: 1445683493583.png (2MB, 999x1680px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 999x1680px

Snibeti bump

>>32964079
How do you manage to lose so many tanks in one place?

>>32983380
>turks

>>32973778
Pfff, details. It's not like tank crews had any vital organs stored here.

>>32983433
Offence taken, anon. Offence very much taken.

>>32975778
The tank design bureaus were still there in WW2, just that post war they all focused on MBTs. In any case, they're just partial variants of one another, with many parts in commonality. The Russian naming schemes are just different that way. It's like claiming the US has many different MBTs because of all the variants of the Abrams we have.

>>32983466
"Le cavalier, comme l'obus d'exercice, a la tête bleue et inerte"

I'm seeing a lot of VBCIs in those videos. Is that a common occurence? How do they work alongside Leclercs?

File: 1481390413976.jpg (431KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1600x1071px

Is the heat signature from the side exhaust of the Boxer bad?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3TeFgrbqhw

Australia will likely choose the Boxer over the AMV35

>>32983648
Didn't know the phrase, nice one !

And yes, it's rather common. They follow much, much better than VABs, so working alongside them is nice, they don't slow us down. Great off-road/crossing capabilities really.

File: 243601_10150985586583187_1855794056_o.jpg (408KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 2048x1536px

>>32983648
>Ol' tanker jk
Mine is dusty, rusty and bitten up... And am no tanker...

>Gulf 2016 videos
Well, the battle group is oriented mechanised troops. An INF regiment is reinforced with a squadron of CAV and other elements such as ART, NRBC, etc.

>>32973778
The Israelis probably agree with you.

>>32978921
>40+ year old Leo 2A4s in shitty condition with shitty crews get rekt by state-of-the-art ATGMs supplied to the Kurds by Germany itself
>that can only mean the most recent Leo 2A7 variants are also shit and defenseless against anti tank weapons
>'hurr hurr, the Leo 2/main battle tank meme is finally over, hurrdurr'

>>32979064
>gets shot at by 120mm guns or less
>'That one bounced!'
>'That one didn't go through!'
>'We didn't even scratch them!'
>We didn't penetrate their armor!'

>>32984927
Leo 2A4 are ~30 years old

Konkurs/Fagot/Metis ATGM are older than Leo 2A4

Leo 2A7 have the same side/rear armor as a 2A4 and lack active protection

>>32963137
>Some Things Should not Fly Edition
Shade at you know who

File: 5dbf0324-dd71-4caf-a700-8c5ddb2ae059.jpg (123KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1200x800px

>>32966264

File: bench.jpg (50KB, 622x331px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 622x331px

>>32987038
>Stuart turret
>Universal Carrier hull

>>32983011
Everything is just shits&giggles with Aussie's...

File: M113_GAVIN.jpg (297KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 640x512px

>>32963137

File: US Military before and after 2001.jpg (114KB, 960x310px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x310px

>>32967909

>Tank has appropriate green camouflage to fit enviroment
>Crew is wearing VOMITcam that would give you away in a heartbeat

Only in post-2001 America.

File: 1353352245341.jpg (287KB, 1280x997px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1280x997px

Anyone know what armored personnel carrier this is?

File: 1353352122212.jpg (296KB, 1280x990px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1280x990px

>>32989953

>>32989953
Based on the number of guys, could be an M44. I don't recall ever actually seeing a picture of one, but it fits the apparent era.

File: Malaysia ACV 300 Adnan_09.jpg (143KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x680px

>>32988541

Glad the spirit of Gavin lives on in form of Malaysian Adnan, Dutch MIFV and Turkish ACV

>>32975778
obligatory
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/11/from-the-vault-why-three-tanks/

File: m113- 90mm cockerill- Textron LP90.jpg (146KB, 1000x788px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1000x788px

>>32963137
>>32965630
I will now post the powerful variants

>>32990183
Gott im Himmel.

File: m113- xm103.jpg (105KB, 1000x729px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1000x729px

>>32990186
>gott mit uns
apparently the gun can not be fired when traversed more than 45 degrees + or -
the m113 would tip over from the recoil

>>32990183
>american apc
>with french (or south african) 90mm turret
>RUSSIAN-TANKS.COM
psyops at its finest

On a sidenote, I'm looking for a picture of a VAB with that same turret, apparently there was one exposed at an old Eurosatory.

File: 1486969117326.jpg (50KB, 433x469px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 433x469px

>>32963137
>last thread was towed
This is a stupid question, but every time I see these threads I wonder if you mean towed as in a tow truck, or towed as in hit with a TOW missile?

>>32990211
You mean an actual VAB or the VBC 90?
Personnally, I've never seen/ear of a VAB with the TS90 turret.

File: VBC-90.jpg (439KB, 2048x1433px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 2048x1433px

>>32990211
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBC-90
this looks like what you are after

there is also this - but it has a shorter gun
http://defence-blog.com/army/renault-trucks-defense-unveils-a-new-vab-mark-3-equipped-with-90mm-gun.html

>>32990261
Anon, you do realize that it's not a TS 90 turret.
It is a CSE90LP from CMI.

>>32990261
i'd like to see that fire.

>>32990266
I did say it was shorter
http://www.janes.com/article/61332/eurosatory-2016-renault-trucks-defense-showcases-latest-vab-mk-3-variants

File: 258707848_c2f8e0b566_o.jpg (67KB, 1103x343px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1103x343px

>>32990270
Wish granted.

>>32990284
woo

>>32990277
Shorter gun doesn't necessarily mean different turret...

File: TS90 1992-06 003.jpg (106KB, 693x467px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 693x467px

Here a M113 with TS 90.

File: Panhard ERC-90 Sagaie-.jpg (194KB, 1024x632px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1024x632px

>>32990270
cant be too bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmSps_YV7o

>>32990299


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

>>32967195
>http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/art/T-64-Premium-Tank-Hoax-158048933?q=gallery%3Ablacktailfa%2F4998468&qo=88
>[Why would anyone in their right mind use Fiberglass in tank armor? This stuff is FLAMMABLE!]
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>32990342
>blacktail
dropped

>>32990365
that's the point
this guy is fucking retarded

>>32967416
>Counter battery fire?What's that?
Wow coked out of your head must a soldier be to get in that thing.

>>32990391
counter battery fire isn't THAT accurate

>>32990325
>>32990299
We've been rather very lucky using this in Africa, considering how wafer thin the armour is...
For instance, I was chatting with a guy who was driver when we helped topple down good ol' Gbagbo in Ivory Coast in 2011. He heard the sounds of impacts during the day and in the evening, when they disembarked back at the camp to check their Sagaie, there was an RPG 7 warhead stuck in the basket on the side of the turret... the shooter never bothered to remove the safety pin.

File: PA045514.jpg (150KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1600x1200px

>>32990398
But the idea is redicilous.
Put the goddamn thing on a tracked vehicle and you have a weapon that moves with the mechanaized infantry, providing them with basic artyllery support.

>>32968098
They should've just kept it how it was back with the M1 and original M1A1 where the TC could use the .50 remotely even then and it was part of the ring of the hatch. But nooooo, had to replace the controls with maps because "being able to know where you are and where everyone else is is more advantageous than using the 50 while buttoned up!"

File: 4e-regiment-de-chasseurs.jpg (95KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x532px

>>32990430
>>32990430

Kinda agree with ya.
See this and skip too 08:08. 1REC reveal that they forced to strap concrete block as improvise armour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RWpiQWGL4

File: 1405869400626.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>32990430
>the shooter never bothered to remove the safety pin
wew...
I have heard that rpg7 can get stuck in things if they are fired too close, iirc they have to turn three times in flight before they are armed
http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/Medevac/Medevac/RPGImpaledAbdomen.html

>>32990503
60 meters is the minimum firing range of rpg-7 type warhead.The Warhead activates from the air-pressure during the launch(40g) and it has i think around 14 second(don't remember correctly) of flight before self-destructing, wich is around a 1000 or so meters.But yeah, firing it bellow those meters is pointless, even if you remove the safety pin

>>32983705

I would think that it wouldn't be any worse than an ASLAV.

File: 15695690848_33188c6b3c_o.jpg (199KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1000x669px

>>32963137
Will not open a separate thread, because I respect mongolian basket weaving forum ethics.

What do those 2 passengers in M3 Bradley do?
What is their mission during the recon?

>inb4 they scout

>>32990898
They scout. Seriously. That's it. They're a scout team. You chuck them out the back and have them hide in a bush and call things out over the radio. Or they can provide (minimal) infantry support, but that is not recommended, given how few in number they are.

Think about it this way: An M3 is supposed to be a scout vehicle, however, it's big and noisy. There are some scouting missions which are better performed by dismounted men than by this big and loud (comparatively) vehicle. The US firmly believes in giving its scouting units both mounted and dismounted capability.

File: RyoviTA.jpg (333KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1920x1080px

>>32963668

>>32992173
>>32990898
I would also add that infantry are more convenient for scouting bridges or other dangerous sections of road for mines or ambushes. without them, the crew would have to leave their fighting positions to do that.

>>32963137
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiGDJ5-dXaI
This was a very enjoyable film about Russian Tanks and German Tanks during WW2.

File: 500_______solido_127_vab_6x6_tourelle_90_sb_c_24470[1].jpg (20KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x375px

>>32990261
Thanks, but that's not the one; I'm looking for an old-school VAB, or maybe a VAB NG.

>>32990236
Actual VAB.
Solido made a model, but I've never been able to find a pic of the real one. IIRC it was part of the Chars & Vehicules Militaires collections, by Ferrard.
I've got some pics of old vab protos with twin 12,7 or AML 60 turrets, so I know the H90 and Lynx turrets fit.

I'm on a hunt for rare french vehicles. My current grail is the quad 20mm SPAAG on GMG chassis, that apparently paraded for Bastille Day in 1951. Gotta go to Chatellerault one day.

>>32966719
M2 Heavy Barrel (HB) .50 Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) standard ball ammunition.

The armor is just enough that the bullet with easily penetrate one side, plow through everything, and be stopped by the armor on the other side. Typically to ricochet around and find a juicy infantrymaggot to plow through that might have been missed.

File: 16_RTD_VAB-MK3-Amph-Copy[1].jpg (259KB, 1024x761px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1024x761px

>>32990492
>That fullsize logo at the end of the video
Seems that concrete blocks are approved by Panhard.

>>32990277
>They managed to make the vab mk.3 amphibious without preparation.
I didn't expect that.
It looks way better than the Griffon VBRM imo. I wonder how different they are, since they are made by the same companies and seem to share a lot of parts and specs.

>>32992173
>dismounted capability
We call those legs.

>>32994187
But if you dismount your crews, you're leaving an expensive vehicle by itself. The US believes in having dismounts in addition to the vehicle crews.

>>32970356
Hit the fuel tanks in a gasoline M113.

That and the M113 has enough armor to let a bomb in and then make sure the detonation kills or destroys everything inside. For bomb see also AT mines and APHE rounds of all calibers.

.50 BMG penetrates one side and then is kept in by the other side. Puree of infantry follows.

>>32993923
Alright so the couple VAB + Lynx 90!
Didn't know that was a thing...
I checked my collection and found nothing, sorry.
The closest thing I got is the VCS 6x6 TS90 which is the blueprint of what we now know as VBC 90.
Unfortunately I don't have any of the Satory I to V (nor IX and X) catalogs so that's a big blank.

Out of curiosity, are you one of the milinfo guys?

>>32994412
Better than being killed in a canvas truck even when the enemy sneezes in your direction. Also beats humping on difficult terrain or bad weather carrying all of your gear. Or 40 km forced marches.

>>32991472
So they just recycled the Warrior turret?

>>32993923

Huh? Me too. Sadly my precious thing right now is a Hong Kong Police Saxon...Still looking for Ratel or Sibmas.

File: M113 A2 with Unmanned Turret System 3.jpg (174KB, 960x606px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 960x606px

>>32963137

>>32989972
looks like it. found this page http://afvdatabase.com/usa/auvm44.html

>>32997055
Sure beats the ACAV.

I'm curious, what is the consensus (without a flame war) about Leo 2 based on what we've seen in Syria? How well did it perform?

Let's set the boundaries though:
>Leo2A4 is an older model but newer ones literally only have applique armor and not much else that would matter against ATGMs, so "monkey model" is not really an argument
>Crew competency does not change anything when you do get hit by an ATGM
>There's reasonable doubt on some of the horribly disfigured ones were probably shot by the airforce after being abandoned for whatever reason

File: 7kfey.jpg (450KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1600x1062px

New Patria AMV 28A is THICC
The addon side armor makes the wheels like tiny in comparison

>>32999627

No confirmed crew deaths so far.
Any MBT will get penetrated by an ATGM that hits side armor, theres no big surprise about that.
Applique Armor still adds quite a little bit of armor to the tank, yes it's spaced, but that was no secret. It's also only on the turret, whereas the crippling hits we saw, were all on the hull.

I'd say it did pretty good - the turret ammo stowage is a known weakness, but it doesn't seem that it in particular was responsible for a lost unit (no dead crew till now).

>>32999627
It shows anti tank weapons are pretty good at doing their jobs and that shitskinned people are good at dying.

>>32999698
What is that missile mounted on the turret?

Also does military equipment have to look threatening? This looks a bit silly in my opinion even if it is effective.

>>32999726
It's a Javelin

>>32999715
>It shows anti tank weapons are pretty good at doing their jobs and that shitskinned people are good at dying.
1- Already known, literally designed for this purpose, we're just comparing how did Leo's fare compared to others.
2- Refer to
>Crew competency does not change anything when you do get hit by an ATGM

>>32999627
Leopard has been mediocre so far.

Seems to be doing better then the older T-XX models but not as survivable as M1A1M. It should be noted here that Iraqi M1A1M seem to be taking hits mostly on the frontal arc, which is not necessarily the case with the Turkish Leopards.

>>33000719
m1's have even shrugged off vbieds that decimated t-72's, in my opinion they're being used better by a more competent force with more experience. the turks have lost so many vehicles from just parking them in the open with little to know support or lookout. i get that atgm teams would be damn near impossible to spot at some of the locations videos show them shooting from but it also appears that even after turks take atgm fire they dont act aggressively on it, no search and destroy, no returned fire.

It'd be also interesting to see how well those t-series with the ad-hoc caged AND spaced armour faired against the same threats and how much it affects engine life/ performance.

>>32990299
About the AML90, a gunner told me that they had some issues in Chad when the puncture proof tires got shredded by sustained AK fire. The tires are rubber with micro-bubbles, but that doesn't make them bulletproof at all.
Sorry /thg/ guy, the wheels mafia is kind of hijacking the thread. :/

>>32994706
Nope. I had never heard of that site before.

>>32999715
>shitskin
If you could keep your /pol/ memes to the dedicated board, it would be much appreciated.

>>32991472
tfw UK will never by the ASCOD direct fire support version with 120mm gun or the netfire version of any of the other varients apart from recon reeeee

File: 1314564240940.jpg (18KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 125x125px

>>32987038
>birtish tank

>>32999627
>Leo2A4 is an older model but newer ones literally only have applique armor and not much else that would matter against ATGMs, so "monkey model" is not really an argument
The side armor wouldn't have held up on pretty much any other tank either, while the front would likely be impervious to penetrable depending on where you hit it, even on a model as old as the A4.

>Crew competency does not change anything when you do get hit by an ATGM
Lack of a competent crew is what gets a tank hit with ATGM in the first place.
You are are looking at the situation ass-backwards.

>There's reasonable doubt on some of the horribly disfigured ones were probably shot by the airforce after being abandoned for whatever reason
If any had blown their top after being hit by an ATGM, the footage would have been all over the internet by now.

File: x-32[1].jpg (73KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x533px

>>32999726
seems so, it's likely why the x-32 lost to the clusterfuck that is the f-35 program

>>33001242
F-35 is still more aerodynamically capable than the X-32 ever was though.

>>32968098

That's literally the whole point behind CROWS->>>>LP<<<< you fucking idiot. People can actually see over the fucking thing, unlike CROWS II where your criticism is 200% valid and you can actually see TCs having to fucking lean around the pieces of shit all the damn time.

>>32967909
>why don't they put it on the TC thermal sight instead?

That'd be Raytheon Battleguard. It's a point, but then it'd be in front of the loader's 240, and it would be too far ahead to reload or operate manually in an emergency.

>>32990491
>But nooooo, had to replace the controls with maps because "being able to know where you are and where everyone else is is more advantageous than using the 50 while buttoned up!"

Are they wrong? Think carefully, now.

>>32990898
The extra passengerd in the recce vehicles are Gibs. Essentially bitch boys. See that crest? Send out the Gib to run up there and see whats on the other side, as to not expose the vehicle. See that bridge? Send the Gib to check for explosives. They literally scout.

>>33001242
well that and the X-32 sucking at anything listed in the project specification...

>>33000988
>mad shitskin

>>33001832
Not him but that was pretty obvious sarcasm anon

>>33001519
>That's literally the whole point behind CROWS->>>>LP<<<< you fucking idiot.

http://taskandpurpose.com/army-trying-kill-life-saving-weapons-system/

>On March 21, Gen. Robert Abrams, commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command, stated FORSCOM’s position is that the Army should “immediately stop the fielding of CROWS-LP [Common Remote Operating Weapon Station – Low-Profile] systems to Forces Command Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABVT),” in a memorandum directed at the vice chief of staff for the Army, which was obtained by Task & Purpose.

>The memo goes on to say, “The CROWS-LP system does not correct tank commander visual and fire control issues.”

>>32992173
>>32992291

You can think of this another way: The two dudes are the scout team. The M3 is just their ride.

File: bradleylinebacker.jpg (47KB, 495x354px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 495x354px

>>32963137
Getting rid of these was the worst mistake the Army ever made

>>33001089
>Lack of a competent crew is what gets a tank hit with ATGM in the first place.
That says nothing about the tank itself though. You can ride a motorcycle very good and not get hit by ATGMs, that doesn't mean that motorcycle is a better platform. We're comparing the properties of the tank when it does get hit by an ATGM.

File: KtUmCKE.png (600KB, 675x450px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 675x450px

>>33001519
>People can actually see over the fucking thing, unlike CROWS II where your criticism is 200% valid and you can actually see TCs having to fucking lean around the pieces of shit all the damn time

The issue is not whether the TC can see out of his hatch, it's whether the remote gun blocks his pano sight. With a regular M2, the only thing in the pano sight's way is the mounting pedestal, which is quite thin, and maybe a little bit of the gun from time to time - all while being mounted much further back than a remote gun is.

Even the CROWS LP (pic related) is still quite large and blocks the pano sight quite a bit. I tried to find a better picture that shows you both the LP and the sight together, but this is the best I've got right now.

File: 20170215_082845.jpg (2MB, 1836x1864px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1836x1864px

Here's a quicky I made with inspiration from metal slug/advanced wars
Making little concept ideas for my WW1/WW2 turn based Rpg, fucked up the track perspective though

>>32992173
IIRC the M3 was initially supposed to carry a motorcycle for those guys to use. Go a few kilometers without the noise and size of a M3, set up your radio and wait for the enemy. If you're going to get overrun get the hell outta Dodge.

File: Tiger Model T-90MS Tagil (14).jpg (46KB, 640x445px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x445px

>>33004037
Why don't they just make the pano sight part of the CROWS like the T90MS?

>>33004166
I can only imagine how cramped that would be.

File: tLBPF-CWAi0.jpg (221KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1280x853px

Have they fixed the armor on the Stryker? Did they put in a Spall liner yet?

>>32990185
Holy latepost, Batman, but were these M113's fitted with the autoloaded version of this gun? If so, are there any pics of the gun from the inside?

>>33004323
I think that's why they didn't do it in the end.
But remember that the M3 carries 1500 rounds of 25mm and 10 TOWs, so if you were willing to part with that you have a lot of room for stuff.

I for one get the feeling that the reason it carried ao much ammo isn't that they wanted it, but that they decided to use the same hull (instead of the same components) as the IFV, so they just decided to stuff as much as possible in.

File: M2_ADS_2.jpg (100KB, 1000x836px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1000x836px

>>33004019

It's a shame this never became a thing. Dumping other pictures of it and some other proposed/cancelled Bradley variants, too.

File: M2_ADS.jpg (125KB, 1000x895px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1000x895px

>>33004424

Turns out there were only two variants that I had pictures of, I thought there were more. Continuing regardless.

File: M2_ADS_3.jpg (69KB, 1000x561px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1000x561px

>>33004438

File: M2_ADS_4.jpg (115KB, 1000x863px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1000x863px

>>33004450

>>33004019
Was the airforce lobby the reason why the US had such shitty AA during the cold war?

>>33004462
What missiles are those?

File: M2_AT_1.jpg (106KB, 1000x653px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x653px

>>33004462

Now for the anti-tank missile variant.

File: 33384870[1].jpg (27KB, 450x296px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 450x296px

>>33004438
Dawwww, it's so cute with its little gun.

>>33004475
Looks like Roland

File: M2_AT_5.jpg (107KB, 1000x631px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x631px

>>33004478

Here's the anti-tank variant. I'm pretty sure this was just a mockup, since the effects on the missile are obviously not real, whereas the AA variant seems to be genuinely firing.

>>33004475

The source didn't say. All I know is that these were from an M2 Bradley ADATS programme back in the 80s.

>>33004535
My mistake, it's clearly ADATS.

File: agds[1].jpg (72KB, 600x477px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x477px

>>33004475
ADATS, dual purpose ATGM/SAM. Canucks fielded them.

File: GE_DIVAD.jpg (323KB, 760x579px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 760x579px

>>33004494

On the same note of canned US AA systems, I wish the GE DIVADS had actually come to fruition. It was too sexy for this world.

>>33004494
That looks so much more badass than the Russian systems.

File: Roland_tank_01[1].jpg (102KB, 696x541px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 696x541px

>>33004535
About the Roland:
The US went pretty close to adopt it massively, before their militaro-industial complex reminded them that buying foreign products is a no-no.
The M109 version was scraped, and the truck version went to the NATO rapid response force in the netherlands, and was given to the national guard after the cold war. They participated in some exercises in the 2000s.

>>33004559
>>33004553
>>33004552
Thanks guys!

>>33001405
The revised version would have been fat superior, it just never got the chance to prove itself - clearly someone has greased the right hands.

File: Xmim-115a[1].jpg (24KB, 547x443px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 547x443px

>>33004665

>>33004665
>The US went pretty close to adopt it massively, before their militaro-industial complex reminded them that buying foreign products is a no-no.

It had far more to do with the French not wanting to do technology transfers so that the Roland could be produced under license in the US as, by law, anything used by the military must have a % of the pieces parts produced domestically.

The units that were purchased were sent directly to the national guard and something like 200 missiles were ever purchased.

What's the difference between the M1127 Reconnaissance Vehicle and the M1131 Fire Support Vehicle

If you are spending 1/3rd your military budget on your airforce, theres not really much point in building AA
Especially since the fucking soviets didn't have guided bombs during the whole cold war

>>33004750
Sensors and radio equipment mostly.

File: image.jpg (26KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x267px

>>33004773
Don't both vehicles have this on the top? Or does the FSV have something esle?

>>32963137
Does the M113 share any parts compatibility with the M551?

>>33004279

Well, that would require designing a whole new sight/gun setup. It costs a lot less to just bolt a remote gun on top and call it a day, so that's what they tried first.

Now that it hasn't worked out, they may in fact upgrade the sight with a gun.

>>33004330
I know people give Strykers criticism but I think the MGS looks awesome.

>>33004467
I don't honestly know but that would be a good guess. It really wasn't that bad to be honest.

File: Raytheon BattleGuard.png (60KB, 279x250px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 279x250px

>>33004279
>Why don't they just make the pano sight part of the CROWS like the T90MS?

Cuz' this already exist.

File: 19c3a9c08f538f4c1fcfda7c6a449315.jpg (55KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 736x552px

>>33004570
This is an M113 thread, nigga!

>>33005635
So why isn't it in service?

>>33004759
>no Soviet guided bombs during the whole cold war
Really? Is that true? Even by 1991?

>>33006262
Why isnt the T-90MS in service?

>>32963137
I want to buy a Brit acp and bury it for when shtf.

How hard would it be to bury a vehicle if you expected to use it soon after digging it up?

https://i.4cdn.org/vg/1487104706339.webm

what vehicle do you think this is?
Im thinking some kind of russian SPG, from the breach recoil and lack of real autoloader
maybe the paradrop one

what do you think?

File: 2s1-03.jpg (292KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1600x1200px

>>33007255

It's a 2S1 Gvozdika. That video is the first thing that shows up if you google for "2S1 Gvozdika interior".

>>33007197
No, why isn't the system pictured in >>33005635 In service?

File: arng_romania.jpg (281KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1280x720px

>>33007589
Because there is no need to adopt a new RWS just for the Abrams when the existing one works just fine.

>buh, muh visibility!

A mountain out of a molehill, especially when things like this article >>33003912 never panned out.

File: cavalry1.jpg (229KB, 1100x600px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1100x600px

>>33004750
>>33004804
The M1127 is mostly a M1126 with extra radio's and a LRAS3. The double V hull version of both is the M1256, ones used by scout cavalry have the LRAS3 on the rear of the hull.

The M1131 has additional equipment to target for, call in and coordinate artillery fire, and has recently been tested with anti UAV equipment.

>>33008279
wow that camo is really nice

>>33007344
thanks

>>33008279
dumb question but why is the LRAS on the rear of the hull

File: question.jpg (168KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1024x686px

What is this thing?

>>33008212
>Because there is no need to adopt a new RWS just for the Abrams when the existing one works just fine.

But it doesn't "work just fine".

>>33008550

I looked it up because I was curious.

That's the top of the M117 Panoramic Telescope. I haven't dug deep enough to discover its exact function, but it has something to do with laying the gun.

Try googling the name to find out more.

>>33006262

Because it costs money and there isn't a screaming need for a new RWS on top of a tank that isn't being sent to war at the moment.

File: IMG_9761.jpg (58KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x532px

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/1st_TSG_Airborne/lavs-vs-m113-gavins-ltc-tooker-v30

Why we should have stuck with the m113 till we could find something better than the stryker.

>>33004073
I feel that

File: 1482589355397.jpg (152KB, 1280x1381px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1280x1381px

>>33008828
>till we could find something better than the stryker.

You mean an M113?

File: IMG_9760.jpg (91KB, 800x596px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x596px

>>33008951
You mean something we already had hundreds of?

Would have cost less. Better mobility land, and air.

The Stryker isn't a solution it's a billion dollar stopgap.

>>33009207
it unironically officially is the stopgap until objective force vehicle in 2020

>>33009280
An expensive one.

>>33000719
it shouldnt be surprising. MBT 70 split off because the Germans emphasized mobility and firepower but the US had a more British approach of good armor and survivability. Leo 2s are jack of all trades mobility centric tanks. The french had a similar philosophy but sacrificed everything for mobility and rof

File: 20150527_140907_zpsp7j3s14w.jpg (227KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1024x576px

>>33008828
>>33009207
>>33008951
Sorry but the Stryker is the superior vehicle my Sparky acolyte friends.

>>33009388
The MBT70 failed because Germany kept insisting on changes that delayed the program, and then started working on the Leopard 2.

>>33008728
Except it does.

File: 291072f1e338fbc8d0acf751f1558e29.jpg (414KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1024x683px

>>33008526
The M1256 has a RWS instead of the big octagonal cupola/turret that the M1127 and M1131 had.

>>33010783
>superior vehicle

Explain.

>>33010830
>doesn't present any evidence
>just repeating the same ridiculous contradiction every time

Fuck off, retard.

>>33008550
>>33008728
Basically an artillery sight?

>>33001405
I though X-32 was more aerodynamically capable but worse in literally everything else and couldn't do STOVL thing in one platform.

>>33011488
>doesn't present any evidence

You need to produce evidence for me to need to refute it.

>>33011243
Explain why a M113 is better than a Stryker. Bonus points if you can do it without spouting memes or buzzwords.

>>33007197
>Why isnt the T-90MS in service?
Its an export upgrade suite, hence the 'S'. The T-90AM variant of the same Prioryv-3 which the MS is based in the first place is the one that will enter Russian Army service.

>>33011962
Lower maintenance, higher reliability, faster, better armored, better armed, enough on board power for modern battle systems...

>>33003912
>when the face picture is CROWS II

Memo or not, it absolutely corrects TC visual issues. There are pictures of CROWS LP being tested and the TCs can absolutely fucking see over it.

I don't know about fire control issues, but I do know that TCs consider RWS in general a waste of time and attention that they could be using to direct the main gun and maintain their situational awareness, which is probably what they're referring to, if not actually referring to CROWS II's somewhat notorious unreliability being passed on to the LP variant.

For the former, literally no RWS will solve this, other than perhaps reverting to the M1A2's flex mount, which isn't an RWS but works just fine. Giving the TC another screen to look at and manage will always be detrimental to the total attention they devote to other actually important tasks.

But note that the only problem that was being questioned regarding CROWS was visibility.

>>33003897

It's hard to tell when there are people actually that retarded.

>>33004037

Okay, wait, seriously? Fuck it, the GPS mount was a stupid idea.

I'm starting to think going the Russian way and not giving a fuck about manually operating the M2 and sticking it behind the hatch is a better idea.

And yeah, I know what the sight picture through the panoramic with the flex mount looks like, it's definitely uncluttered. I can't believe this shit. I could have sworn there was a viewing window or cutout in the LP base itself.

At least when unbuttoned they don't have to fucking lean.

>>33004279

That's the CIV. CIV/CITV-integrated RWS is Raytheon Battleguard, as mentioned >>33001671 and >>33005635. Russians might call that thing a panoramic, but that's not what we're referring to.

>>33004570
>not posting the Sperry Rand system

boi

You're right, though.

>>33005692

There we are!

>>33012516
The best solution for the M2 is probably what the Americans and Russians did in the past, and Israelis do now- coaxial to the main gun, so it uses all the existing fire control equipment for the main gun without getting in the way, lets the commander get on with commanding not playing with the fiddycal.

>>33012571
50 is on top for anti-helicopter use and other things that are too high to engage with main gun

>>33011962
We didn't have to buy them, because we already m113s

>>33010783
I'm not hating on the Stryker. It just seems stupid to waste billions on a vehicle that's only temporary. We could have upgraded the m113s and m2s. And kept shopping for a better replacement.

The Stryker just isn't good enough.
Buy a few to play with maybe but it's just not the vehicle we need.

>>33012571

I personally like the M60's solution where the TC has a cupola with a unity, 8-power day, and 8-power IR sight, all of which can more-or-less dual-purpose as the commander's independent sight. All it needs is the ability to automatically designate the way the M1A2's CITV does.

>>33012578

No matter how much people insist that the commander's .50 is an anti-aircraft/helicopter gun, it's not. It can sort of do it, but it's almost less than useless in the role outside of an entire platoon or company massing fire in an emergency at a helicopter that took them by surprise and has thereby already fucked them. If you have a rotary-wing problem that's too high to handle with the main gun, again, you are already fucked.

You should not be getting into those situations as a TC. You should be in situations where at most you need to MPAT AIR some faggot in an emergency. If you're being called upon to do more than this, something is very wrong.

The commander's machine gun is for engaging miscellaneous infantry and softskin targets that the gunner is not currently engaging because they're killing something higher-priority. It should not be forced into any role beyond that. It's only slightly less useless than the loader's 240 on the Abrams. That thing should almost never be used, since the loader is far more useful serving the main gun, the same way the TC is far more useful fighting the tank.

>>33012578
The main gun can elevate to +20. I'm pretty sure the independent mounts don't do much more than that, but anyway +20 is sufficient for a helicopter behind a hill. MPAT is in use to deal with them better than the fiddycal.
>>33012716
The problem with the M60's cupola is that it's huge, raises the profile, and forces the commander to stick further up if he wants to see out. Also needlessly fills his workspace with the M85.
The Israelis replaced the tumors with a low profile cupola, and late US M48A5 did as well. Even the Turks, who kept the tumor when they bought the Sabra, are now replacing it with a RWS and low profile hatch.