/thg/ Treadhead General

File: IWM-NA-24043-Priest-Kangaroo-Conselice-19450413.jpg (124KB, 800x792px)

124KB, 800x792px

>>33108279
OP: As always, feedback, suggestions wanted and appreciated.
The Commonwealth concept of the “Kangaroo” is often lauded as the first example of an APC in the world, yet such a perspective is disingenuous, with earlier British efforts such as the Mark IX of Great War fame predating the Kangaroo. Nevertheless, the Kangaroo in all its various shapes and sizes became the most prominent and successful application of protected mobility for infantry in the Commonwealth forces, and offered capabilities that contemporary halftracks often lacked. Riding in a Kangaroo was no picnic, however. For Ram Kangaroos, space for the passengers and crew were inordinately cramped, as the typical passenger capacity of eight was often exceeded due to a critical shortage of mechanised capability in Allied units near the German border, as well as packed equipment and weapon modifications to the vehicle further restricting space. In addition, passengers would often have to compete for the warm radiator space during frequent rainfall. The biggest issue was, of course, the ever-present threat of shrapnel and grenades eviscerating the occupants. Thus, the main utility of the Kangaroos came from their ability to operate alongside tanks in terms of speed and logistics as opposed to outright protection, although certainly Kangaroos were a far safer ride than trucks or halftracks.

File: Ram_Kangaroo_1_Bovington.jpg (948KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 2592x1944px

>>33108291
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.

The UAE has announced the selection of the Rabdan 8x8 IFV for its military, produced by Al-Jasoor, a joint venture between the Emirati HVI and Turkey’s Otokar. The vehicle itself is a development of the Otokar Arma 8x8 fitted with a turret from a BMP-3.

Nexter has proposed upgrades for the UAE’s Leclercs, which already boast modifications such as AZUR. The proposed modification to the UAE Leclerc includes replacing the current commander's panoramic system with a new Safran PASEO Modular Advanced Stabilised Sighting System.

SAIC has unveiled the first of a projected 16 prototypes for the long running US Marine Corps’ tender for the ACV 1.1. The platform in question is a Terrex 2 modified to suit the amphibious needs of the USMC, and developed in cooperation with the patent owner STK. This stands in contrast with BAE, which has partnered with Iveco.

Brigadier Chris Mills of the ADF, speaking at IQPC 2017, confirmed that Land 400 would see a faceoff between Patria’s AMV35 (with a BAR Hagglunds CV9035 turret) and Rheinmentall MAN’s Boxer (with a 35 mm Lance turret) in the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle category. The two vehicles are being put through a 12 month Risk Mitigation Activity trial to be completed in late 2017.

Spain is set to deploy six Leopard 2E MBTs and around 15 Pizarro IFVs to Latvia as part of a multinational mission force to bolster Baltic defenses in response to perceived Russian aggression. Some 350 troops are part of the Spanish force, alongside Canadian and other contributors like Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Albania.

Canada will modernise 141 LAVs per defence minister Harjit Sajjan, improving mobility, protection and information management systems. The LAVs are expected to be delivered in 2019 and last until 2035.

And that’s all for now.

>>33108279

Kind of weird to see a dude with a SMLE next to a guy with a Mk4

File: Stalingrad-British-Universal-Carrier-with-Soviet-Censor-Marks.jpg (731KB, 1380x837px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1380x837px

>>33108291

Was the universal carrier not considered and APC or something?

File: vt4_ammo2.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

>>33108807

File: vt4_ammo3.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

>>33108833

>>33108495
I always saw it as a kind of proto IFV, because of the firepower it was supposed to transport along with infantry, but a more accurate way of looking at it would be as a means of transporting heavy crew weapons with their crews.

File: The-Universal-or-Bren-Gun-Carrier.jpg (48KB, 652x439px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 652x439px

>>33108495
Dankest vehicle ever made.

>>33108869
Chinese are getting in on the gun ATGMs it seems.

What the fuck were the Soviets thinking with the BMP? They wanted a heavy assault vehicle with huge firepower that could unload troops in the enemy's face, but then they gave it paper thin armor so that whole formations of them melt in the face of arty/ATGMs/anything heavier than an HMG before they even get close.

File: C5JB5czVMAAHC9T.jpg (125KB, 1200x878px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1200x878px

Meanwhile, in Yemen...

>>33110176
we tried to warn you, jeff goldblum!

>>33110176
Could someone explain the significance of the photo? It just seems like two tanks that lost their lids when hit by AT weapons.

>>33110787
They exploded so hard they swapped turrets.

>>33110081
The logic behind it is that they couldn't make the thing go fast, be amphibious AND resistant to heavy weapons. At the time, even the cheapest HEAT weapons would REKT MBT armors, so 14.5mm protection was more than enough. In fact, the leopard armor was only rated to stop 30mm from the front and 14.5 on the sides, IIRC.

>>33111022
Which is funny considering that yom kippur and later conflicts proved you needed heavy armor or other countermeasures to not get chewed up by ATGMs.

The soviets kept with this dumb design philosophy into the BMP-3: impressive firepower for a few seconds before it dies in one hit to literally anything.

>they couldn't make the thing go fast, be amphibious AND resistant to heavy weapons.
How funny considering the M2 Bradley could do all of those things while offering superior armor and firepower

>>33111258
M2 bradley was penned frontally by 14.5mm in gulf war kys

>>33111316
How far did you have to reach into your ass to pull that claim out?

>>33111316
We should hang out. I too enjoy making things up.

>>33111258
That war proved nothing because it was fought by sand niggers. The bradley is only rated up to 30mm frontally, with era that protect it against simple HEAT warheads, hardly an unkillable beast. Crew competence is the determining factor here. So much so in fact that I strongly believe a professional army fielding bmp1 in fewer numbers than an an ayyrab army fielding a larger number of the lastest greatest western ifv, would be a lot more effective.

>>33108323
That's a No.4 Mk1 or 1*

>>33111331
>>33111350
there was atleast one casualty from 14.5mm inside the fighting compartment of a Bradley, looking for a source now

>>33111433
>muh arab crews

Every time Soviet crews, pilots, etc. went to fight in the middle east, they got their shit kicked in just as hard. Arab crews are competent enough. The problem is their equipment is shit and Soviet doctrine is horrible in the desert.

You pit two arab armies, one with NATO weapons and doctrine, vs one with Soviet weapons and doctrine, as was the case in Iran-Iraq, the NATO side almost always wins.

>>33111459
>arabs killing each others
>the rest of the world wins
We're not even talking about that though, were discussing ifvs armour. Stop being so salty.

>>33111475
You're the dumb nigger who brought up the retarded "muh arab crews" excuse like every other fucking vatnik does over and over again.

Soviet armor and weapons have always been fucking decades behind the west and it has shown EVERYWHERE they have ever fought. Arabia, Africa, Yugoslavia, etc, the same fucking thing always happens.

Speed and memephibious capability do not make up for actual decent armor and the Soviets utterly failed to produce any weapons on the level of the TOW (Which STILL hasn't been surpassed) or M829 until the Soviet Union itself was long gone.

File: 457854515487.jpg (96KB, 750x570px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 750x570px

>>33111501
read
>>33110081
and then
>>33111022

>>33111316
>M2 bradley was penned frontally by 14.5mm in gulf war kys

Yes, pre A2 Bradley's still existed in Desert Storm.

>>33111459
>>33111501
you literally cannot find as much bullshit in as much as these two posts

>>33111674
not an argument

>>33111785
When facts relay the opposite, or when you even find yourself defending or excusing subhuman sandniggers for their lack of ability to wage modern combined arms warfare with other than their own ineptitudeness, that's when you should know you are spouting bullshit so hard they are going to need a whole 3 Gorges Dam Complex to hold it. Or are a sandnigger subhuman yourself.

>>33110081
There was no point in armoring the BMP-1 against anything other than shrapnel and small arms because of the fact the AT weaponry could kill MBTs anyway.

File: german apc prototype.jpg (15KB, 525x291px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 525x291px

Just found out the Germans made an attempt at an APC in 1944 as well

File: IMG_9508.jpg (398KB, 1729x1124px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1729x1124px

>>33112478
>38(t)

Well, of course.

File: anipotato.jpg (9KB, 156x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 156x200px

>>33111459
>Iran-Iraq war
>two arab armies

>>33112996
>persians are whiiiiiite!

>>33113020
Well, they're not Arabs either.

>>33113043
They're just as incompetent.

Could some anon kindly explain how US TD doctrine worked in WWII? I know the "tanks shouldn't fight tanks" thing is bullshit, but I'm not sure how the TDs fit in.

>>33108279
>a new Threadhead General

Oh, my weekend is now complete

>>33113327
Short version is it didn't work.

Doctrine stated that the TD branch was to be a mobile reserve of anti-tank weapons kept in reserve to respond to an enemy armored breakthrough. In practice no one was willing to leave a bunch of tracked big guns in the rear and broke up TD formations and sent them to the front.

If you have the time this video explains it in depth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ho8TU_JpoI

>>33113350
Remind me, do we hate McNair or is that not the trend anymore?

>>33111258
>The soviets kept with this dumb design philosophy into the BMP-3
Unlike everyone else, the soviets operate their vehicle in two different continents with billions of rivers and poor infrastructure limiting the weight and demanding the ability to swim.

And how does the Bradley offer superior firepower and armor? Both are pretty much equal.

>>33113501
I would argue BMP-3 has superior firepower, but the latest applique on the M2 might offer better protection.

>>33111022
>leopard armor was only rated to stop 30mm from the front and 14.5 on the sides
The front was proofed against 85mm AP. It's 70mm at around 60°. The sides are only 14.5mm though.

>>33113350
The one time the reserve strategy was actually implemented was in Tunisia. Even during the Ardennes, the textbook example of the panzer push TDs were supposed to counter, they were used very differently.

Just how bad is the m113 in modern warfare? I have some friends who are in units that use them.

>>33113802
for what country? some have decent applique armour. they make a good battle taxi. think bmp with a 50 cal

>>33113548
>I would argue

OK, then go ahead and make that argument.

>>33113327

They didn't, which is why the idea was immediately abandoned after the war by every nation that had used them.

>>33113828
IDF. Some of them have one with a mortar on it, the others are fucked.

File: 551E0606-060E-4D4E-A09F-7383BA6C4EA9-8361-00000442A9CC888F_tmp.jpg (74KB, 583x581px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 583x581px

>>33113852
>Jew v Sandpeople (????-2017)
>modern warfare

>>33113852
We don't really use the M113 in frontline roles anymore. They are being slowly phased out.

>>33113852
someone correct me if im wrong but they're being phased out in place of the namer and/or the new wheeled apc

>>33113896
The phasing out is a gradual process. The Namer is in production and being delivered to combat engineers; the Eitan is not yet in full production. So in the mean time the 113 is still around.

>>33113904
Most commanders will rather send their grunts on foot than in an M113 these days.
See: Op Protective Edge.

>>33113616
>85mm ap
Got sauce on that? I said 30mm but i'm actually reading 20mm everywhere, with more recent versions having better turret protection.

>>33114066
I had a source, I can't find it now. IIRC it was an American evaluation of NATO tanks, which concluded that the reason US tanks are heavier is due to protection requirements, not tech dufferences. It said that the Leo is designed to resist only reserve (85mm) guns, as opposed to the M60A1 which frontally resists 100mm AP.
70mm steel at 60° is waaaaay overkill for 20mm AP, but is enough to stop 85mm AP, So that at least is consistent with the report.
Later versions got better armor, can't remember what the threat criteria for that were.

File: 1487884676167.jpg (34KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 320x320px

>>33114137
>85 mm antitank gun D-48
185mm of armor at a range of 1000 meters
>85 mm divisional gun D-44
Subcaliber BR-365P HVAP-Tprojectiles penetrating 100 mm of armor at 1000 meters

>>33114196
That's vertical. Against 60° sloped APBC loses a lot of penetration. Hell 75mm at 60° (T-44) was rated sufficient to stop the 88mm PzGr 39 from the KwK 36 at 1000m, a credible immunity zone against a more powerful projectile which penetrates slopes better.
There's no reason to think 70mm at 60° wouldn't stop 85mm APBC at 1000m.
HVAP was both rare and a poor performer against slopes.

>>33114286
Alright I don't know how common those threats were but does angling the target actually make it that much less effective? I know about line of sight thickness, its 140mm @ 60deg. Still, the protection was pretty bad overall.

File: IMG_1401.jpg (2MB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1066px

>>33108308
>SAIC has unveiled the first of a projected 16 prototypes for the long running US Marine Corps’ tender for the ACV 1.1

Hoping SAIC wins.

>>33114351
>>33114286
>>33114196
If you actually look at guns that were used in the timeframe the leo was used you get up to 400mm pen. These are antiquated.

>>33114381
Yes. The point at the time was that the Germans preferred to be mobile at the price of not being armored against top level threats. 400mm pen is with HEAT, and it's not easy to hit a small, fast tank with those.

File: BMP-3F show water.webm (3MB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x320px

>>33111258
ONLY bare M2 variant could "swim" with condom in calm water and it couldn't rotate turret or fire.

>>33112469
Looks like Panther with Hetzer wheels.

>>33113548
>but the latest applique on the M2 might offer better protection.

The M2 has been capable of withstanding RPGs from the side since the M2A2 and the BMP's 30mm cannot touch the frontal armor.

Meanwhile BMP series front is still penetrable by 25mm AP from 2km.

File: timeline_1409219444_1381625250_00031.jpg (47KB, 612x344px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 612x344px

>>33114562
>Reassembling myself was the first trick I learned

>>33113861
well, theyve got both modern and old rpgs.
Besides, isnt urban and asymmetrical warfare the most modern mode of warfare there is currently?

>>33114753
That one was definately not presented to the IDEX...

Why is the US so bad at procuring new vehicles? Why do they always try to reach ahead with billion dollar boondoggle programs that always fail

>>331can this survive rpg-7?

>>33114355
can this survive rpg 7?

>>33115050
Can it survive an RPG launcher being thrown at it, I am sure it can.

>>33115050
Don't just say RPG-7. There are so many different rockets that it can launch. It could definitely stop some of them. Others,notably the most advanced anti tank munitions, especially from certain angles, could probably penetrate.

>>33114968
Why are you so bad at bait, here is a consolation (you).

>>33115202
PG-7VL to the side?

>>33115275
Nothing in that weight range will with just the base armor.

File: 14386266404051.jpg (69KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 960x540px

>>33114562
using BMP and MRAP to lead a convoy is not smart

File: RPG-22_vs_cage_armor.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>33115050
Slat armor is cheap you know

>>33115350
Well with MRAP first, the chance of survival is much greater.
BMP first sucks, it's note made to resist and it slightly increase the losses...

File: 14799123434912.jpg (486KB, 1100x890px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1100x890px

>>33114550
BMP with 4S24 is pretty much impenetrable again HEAT warhead and still amphibious
the ERA module also act as applique armor again KE round

>M2A2 and the BMP's 30mm cannot touch the frontal armor.
>Meanwhile BMP series front is still penetrable by 25mm AP from 2km.

which ammunition? and i call that 2km penetrate with 25mm, bull shit

Russian standard 30mm AP round is the 3UBR8 (APDS-T)

Muzzle velocity: 1120m/s
Core: Tungsten alloy
Penetration, RHA (60 degrees):
1000m = 35mm
1500m = 25mm
2000m = 22mm


Penetration, RHA (0 degrees):
Muzzle = 85mm
500m = 80mm
1000m = >70mm
1500m = >50mm
2000m = >44mm

3UBR8 is far better than the older 3UBR6 (AP-T) that the US used to test their Armor

Penetration, RHA (60 degrees):
700m = 20mm
1500m = 16mm


Penetration, RHA (0 degrees)
0m = 48mm
700m = 43mm
1500m = 39mm

>>33115434
EuroSatory 2016 not IDEX 2017.

File: test-drayv-bmp-3-bez-tormozov-avtonovosti_3939.jpg (190KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1500x1000px

>>33115451
3UBR8 inside a BMP-3 feed stray

>>33115275
Possibly, but I'd highly doubt it. A PG-7VR is likely to do the job.

File: IMG_8502.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>33115482
sorry, this was mean to reply >>33115450

>>33115450
Your 60 degree numbers are for 0 degrees, and are comparable to 25mm M791 APDS.

>>33115494
No problems

>>33114753
Did you brought your wrench FF?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQfonCPHKVM

>>33113852
IDF unlike some other users neglected uparmoring M113. A US M113A3 has similar armor thickness to a Bradley, but further M113 upgrades or production of that tiny vehicle are dead in the US.

Israel doesn't send theirs into heavy combat any more IIRC because for IDF use ultra-heavy vehicles like Namer are a better fit. IDF doesn't need power projection and know the terrain they fight on will never be different.

M113 has its uses but it's as obsolete as an M2 half-track. Nobody needs a tiny tracked AFV when wheels can go anywhere tracks can be safely employed. Modern suspension and tires have made light tracks and tanks obsolete outside rear areas. Every vehicle must now withstand IEDs so you need at least ~thirty tons to avoid being flipped over no matter how good your armor is. Every vehicle must withstand IEDs so vee-hulls are mandatory for everything except MBT.

You could replace M113 suspension with Davis Technology adjustable hydraulic suspension (the prototype worked very well) and gain cross country performance along with modern armors where the torsion bars used to live and enough ride height for a removable dual vee hull, but there's no requirement for those mods.

File: IMG_8391.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

http://www.menadefense.net/2017/02/16/meilleur-char-de-combat-propose-russie-a-clients-etrangers-t-90ms/

a french article about T-90SM and Russian weapon sale to north Africa and Middle east, it got some neat T-90SM pic from the test drive in Algérie

>>33115519
>Your 60 degree numbers are for 0 degrees
wat?

>>33114968
The US doesn't need new vehicles. We have plenty and can kill anything. Buying vehicles to please autists isn't a priority. We could upgrade Abrams and Bradley for fifty years since a complete overhaul is effectively a new vehicle.

>>33115570
>A US M113A3 has similar armor thickness to a Bradley

No it doesn't, not even early model Bradleys.

>>33115579
>>33115652
>wat?

I derped, ignore that part.

>>33115524
This is strangely mesmerizing. Like those videos of heavy machinery operating.

File: 6829513410_1df79d419a_b.jpg (165KB, 1024x735px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1024x735px

>>33112469
Here's something different .....

File: Char 361.png (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>33115910
Indeed!
I started in 2008 and still continue to work that bitch hard!
One day, maybe, I'll be able to do the same shit.

File: 6975637835_b7a058dd0d_b.jpg (300KB, 1024x732px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1024x732px

>>33115960
And some more for you ....

File: 6829513166_60e8899280_h.jpg (296KB, 1600x1133px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1600x1133px

>>33115973

File: 6975637519_71c30320b5_h.jpg (346KB, 1600x1133px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1600x1133px

>>33115985

File: Kätzchen, prototype APC vehicle-ka4.png (97KB, 394x211px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 394x211px

>>33115994

File: Kätzchen, prototype APC vehicle.png (248KB, 570x325px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 570x325px

>>33116016

File: Kätzchen, prototype APC vehicle-ka3.png (196KB, 442x274px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 442x274px

>>33116032

File: 002.bjpg.jpg (55KB, 610x369px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 610x369px

>>33116065

>>33112469
what was is called again katze or something?

File: 39_2[1].jpg (49KB, 652x343px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 652x343px

>>33112469
Wouldn't the Sdkfz 251 also qualify as an APC?

French Lorraine 39L VBCP from 1940 (2 crew, 10 passengers)

>>33116775
that thing looks more modern than it has any right to
hell, switch a few things around and it's a Gavin!

>>33116762
Kätzchen prototype APC based on the picture titles just above your post

As far as treads go, is there a site that allows for easy purchase?

File: renault-trc-36r-1-_imagesia-com_y6sp[1].jpg (85KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x600px

>>33116795
French army in 1940 is fascinating. A mix of amazing high-tech gear alongside pack mules and completely outdated stuff (like the De Dion-Bouton Auto-Canon, a SPAAG with a 75mm mle 1897 on a turn of the century chassis).

>>33116933
smol arty tractor! so cute!

File: dion bouton auto canon.jpg (31KB, 606x482px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 606x482px

>>33116933
>Dion-Bouton Auto-Canon
looks like technicals from the Syrian war

>>33117335
With CAESAR everything has changed but the concept.

File: armored cars la rochelle 1944 french resistance.jpg (96KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x424px

>>33117335
>meanwhile in Aleppo
>auto-canon drifts around a corner at the impressive speed of 15km/h
>poilus discharging thier Bertier carbines and 1892 revolvers at anything that moves
>fires an obus de rupture modele 1910 at an awestruck M113, destorying it
>continues on its way, while the crew sings la Madelon
We live in a really boring world, sometimes.

Since where talking about Syria; during ww2, partisans produced some armored cars from civilian chassis that are, in a way, the ancestors of the contraptions seen today in the middle east.
There's the polish Kubus for the Warsaw uprising, the danish V3 Holger Danske, and a couple others.
The car on the foreground is based on a Simca 5 and was equipped with a FM 24/29 and a flamethrower.

>>33114355
I'm hoping BAE loses, because I wouldn't want to drive around in an Iveco IFV.

>>33117335
That vehicle is very nicely designed for the time, for example the adjustable foot assemblies.

>>33115579
>T-90SMs filtering their way down to Sub Saharan conflicts
Make it happen.

>>33111459
Yes and how many suckerpunch and dickshot did the saudi's had to endured against Yemen?

File: Bronco CB35010SP British Cruiser tank A34 comet A aa.jpg (113KB, 640x502px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 640x502px

>>33108279
Best britbong tank coming through.

>>33114550
>The M2 has been capable of withstanding RPGs from the side since the M2A2 and the BMP's 30mm cannot touch the frontal armor.
Not tandem munitions however. 4S24 ERA and that one German CLARA ERA are the only add-on armors that I know of that can withstand tandem charge HEAT and to the sides.

>BMP's 30mm cannot touch the frontal armor.
That's what the 100 mm gun is for, with an actual guided round. Oh and Russian tests are with higher (80%) criterion and 280 BHN instead of 240 BHN RHA test armors, so you still need to adjust it. Then there is the 3UBR11.

>>33114550
>Meanwhile BMP series front is still penetrable by 25mm AP from 2km.
Not true.
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/bmp-3-underappreciated-prodigy.html
>The base turret has 50mm of aluminium across its front half, stepping down to 43mm across its rear half. Spaced 70mm away from the base armour is a 16mm hard steel plate. The entire front is sloped at 60 degrees. Altogether, the array should be totally proof against 25mm and 30mm APDS, and it should have no difficulties resisting 25mm APFSDS from much, much shorter distances than 2 km
>The upper plate armour profile can be described as a 60mm aluminium plate, with a 12mm bolt-on hard steel plate, with a 10mm hard steel wave breaker spaced 70mm away from the main armour. All of this is sloped at 30 degrees from the vertical, making this part of the armour very potent against everything except long rod APFSDS rounds.
>The lower plate is the same 60mm of aluminium, except that now, it is sloped at a slightly steeper 43 degrees. There is no wave breaker here, but there is a dozer blade made from the same high hardness, high strength BT-70Sh steel.
+ behind the hull armor immediately is a large fuel tank mind you.

>>33121352
>are the only add-on armors that I know of that can withstand tandem charge HEAT and to the sides.

Well now you know that BRAT can as well.

>>33121352
>>The base turret has 50mm of aluminium across its front half, stepping down to 43mm across its rear half. Spaced 70mm away from the base armour is a 16mm hard steel plate. The entire front is sloped at 60 degrees. Altogether, the array should be totally proof against 25mm and 30mm APDS, and it should have no difficulties resisting 25mm APFSDS from much, much shorter distances than 2 km
With M919? I'm not so sure about that.

Now that McMaster has seized control of the White House, what changes do you expect to see in US ground forces?

>>33122117
with his attitudes on russia and islam, i doubt he'll have time to make many changes

File: T-90SM.webm (1MB, 1000x450px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x450px

>>33115579

>>33122164
>dat diesel

>>33122117
I expect a continuation of the current modernization and refocusing efforts for the US army.

>>33122117
Potentially a major reorganization of BCTs.

>>33117656
> We live in a really boring world, sometimes.
take heart. it's not as bad as all that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izMePa4ZrIs

>>33119701
all of them? soviet artillery is truly and genuinely scary. always was, since Peter the Great times.

>>33122537
Meh. What would you change? Really, the only big one I see is adding an integral ADA battalion or company.

>>33122768
Jesus christ. Next thing you know, they'll be breaking out muskets dating from the Ottoman-Persian wars.

>>33122117
I expect new gear to get a slightly faster track than otherwise. I also expect two extremely levelheaded persons to be giving advice to the POTUS, both of which are not afraid of speaking their minds.

https://twitter.com/Conflictszone/status/835528069335158786

Iraqi army failing at basic rear security, it seems.

Judging from launch profile, missile flight, time to impact (~8.5 seconds) and time sound of blast took to arrive (~3 seconds) missile was an AT-3. Blowout panels didn't go up so probably engine hit and mobility kill.

>>33123752
I'm not even sure the tank was occupied in the first place.

>>33122164
...

Why do tanks not have muzzle brakes / flash hiders / blast deflectors?

File: 1415506547430.jpg (94KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x680px

>>33124098
muzzle brakes typically reduce the recoil of the barrel from the force of the projectile like a rifle has but nowadays they have a system designed to absorb it. a flash hider for a tank would be pretty fucking massive. some of the lower gun calibres (100,90,75) do have brakes on them as they're typically smaller light vehicles without the luxury of a lot of room or weight

>>33111459
>You pit two arab armies, one with NATO weapons and doctrine, vs one with Soviet weapons and doctrine, as was the case in Iran-Iraq, the NATO side almost always wins.
I'm confused by that example, who is supposed to have soviet/western doctrine & gear and who is supposed to have won?

Is that the joke?

File: file.png (3MB, 1980x1320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1980x1320px

Independence Day of the Republic of Estonia 2017

File: file.png (2MB, 1980x1320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1980x1320px

>>33124347

>>33124347
is it normal to have foreign forces in your independence parade?

File: 6128315772_0d9168a1aa_b.jpg (587KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1024x768px

>>33108495
I guess it's more of an all-round design (hence the Universal designation), for schlepping troops and supplies about, providing light fire support from a Bren or Boys AT rifle, and acting as a prime mover for smaller artillery and mortar crews. They really were great at a lot of things, but not really protected enough to be a proper APC.

>>33124364

If they're visiting, why not?

>>33122768
I believe it was determined circa 2011, thanks to the quirky Libyan rebels conversions, that those guys are basically Orks.

>>33124364
It's rather common to invite allies or countries you want to honour in some way.

>>33124355
>camo
Why

>>33124098
Generally speaking, it messes with sabot separation and kicks up more dirt, obscuring fall of shot and giving away the firer. Lighter vehicles (Centauro for example), do have muzzle breaks, of a more modern type which interferes less with the sabots.

>>33124455
vehicle gets knocked out and you have to abandon it or some shit

or maybe uniform standardisation

>>33123683
pretty sure I saw some StG-44s in ISIS hands. Assad Sr. was a real pack-rat, and so was Ghaddafi

>>33124455
you pop your head up over the ridge to look for the enemy, you don't want some dude with a Dragunov to take your shiny white face up for target practice

>>33124513
The real pack-rats are the Israelis. If any shit goes down with them, we'll probably see Uzis, FALs, Super Bazookas, refurbished K98s, and whatever else they had and decided to keep.

File: CqzdQCWXYAABEwo.jpg (175KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1200x800px

>>33124347
I really like the look of this Abrams

>>33124517
>>33124493
Well, yes, indeed. It was a rhetorical why desu. I kind of hate having to put camo on, though it seldom happens.

>>33124544
yeah it looks ready to tactically withdraw through the Fulda gap

File: australia-c-1942-an-australian-ac1-sentinel-cruiser-tank.jpg (149KB, 640x403px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 640x403px

how much of an impact would these have made had they managed to get them out?

>>33124355
>fucking FLAK jackets in a tank

that's how you know it's good right guise? GUISE?
*bleeds to death from spall*

File: 1448048501704.jpg (1MB, 2780x1810px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2780x1810px

>>33125592
It's actually kind of funny. AP can't get through the tank's think armor so sometimes the easiest way to knock one out is to just lob an HE shell at the upper glacis plate. You can do this in Steel Beasts and it's an instant kill every time, even without "kill when hit" turned on.

File: 1480819035277.jpg (337KB, 1280x1483px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1280x1483px

>>33125641
>think armor
>tfw too intelligent for spall liners

>>33125592
>Tankers are never outside their tanks
>secondary fragments aren't a major source of injuries and damage in the event of armor penetration
>the extra safety isn't worth the minor discomfort of wearing it while seated in an air-conditioned vehicle
>if you're forced to bail, the enemy will patiently wait for you to get your kit on before shooting at you with small arms
>Tanks aren't full of large hard objects moving around
Anything else you'd like to imply?

>>33125641
would be surprised if an Abrams suffered from that. Spall is a RHA thing....

>>33125658
>Anything else you'd like to imply?
Yes
>implying those vests are NIJ lvl II
>implying they will stop 7.62x39
>implying they will even stop 9mm

>>33125659
Upper glacis is only 50mm thick. You'd probably knock the driver out or kill him from the blast alone.

>>33125759
The upper glacis is only 50mm but it isn't RHA.

>>33125562
looking at that gun, I'd say "not much"

>>33125641
I spy with my little eye... early MILES kit?

>>33125890
Sentinels could be fitted with 6 pounders instead of 2 pounders

>>33126032
there is saying in my country: if Grandma had tracks, she could have been tank, and if she had a testicle, she could have even been war minister.

>>33126041
2 pounders would have been fine for Japanese tanks

File: C5lrvFTWUAAEo29.jpg (337KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1080x1080px

Identify this round held by a Turkish Leopard 2A4 crewman.

>>33126684
gee lemme guess this NATO MBT round -120mm Apfsds

>>33126684
looks like a round for the .50

File: C5j5wxbUoAA1f3Z.jpg (220KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1200x675px

Boxer CRV compared to ASLAV

>>33126864
Try being more specific.

>>33126684
penetrates isis soft targets really good

>>33126684
>identify this
inb4 Famas

File: C5j5wxiVMAE6sic.jpg (192KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1200x900px

AMV 35 compared to ASLAV

>>33126684
maraging steel sabot round
fgt Turks cannot into tungsten, lol

>>33126286
a Boys was weapon enough for jap "tanks". what is your point?

>>33127063
>how much of an impact would these have made had they managed to get them out? (fighting Japan)
>looking at that gun, I'd say "not much"

Not sure if you lack reading comprehension or are simply a retard.

File: ZSrypy_eW5g.jpg (217KB, 1695x1080px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1695x1080px

>>33126864
>>33127037
It is German made DM63 ammo, literally the 'newest' shit.

>>33126908
Hope Patria gets the contract.

File: 160210-patria-amv[1].jpg (440KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1280x960px

>>33127795
Pretty modular.

>>33127867
I heart the AMOS turret

>>33125592
Because the armor is literally the only thing inside the tank right? Just a breech and the inner turret walls?
>>33125681
And yes it will stop 9mm. It's the same material as an IOTV's soft armor.

Although as a note, those guys in the pictures look like shit. I won't press the fact that they're not in fire resistant gear since they're in a parade (not combat/live fire training), but everyone who wears their chicken vest outside their clothing looks like a bag of ass. Also why the fuck do they have camo paint on

>>33128161
Note before I get yelled at and called a retard for not knowing about shit I'm not issued, at second look those look like the newer flight jackets, which I believe are FR, so that comment really only applies to the neck gaitor

>>33126880

kek

File: Track full of Money - Baghdad 2003.png (3MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1242x2208px

>>33114355
Does this mean we're not going to be Tracks anymore?

>>33115434
What are those hexagonalish shaped things just below and behind the MG?

>>33128556
canister grenades

>>33127112
not sure if you lack comprehension or are just retarded
any sort of gun was enough to destroy jap tanks, so the main role for tanks in the jap campaign was actually infantry support, and for that you need a relatively high caliber gun, so as to throw a useful HE round

>>33128641
Doubling down when you couldn't follow a response chain isn't the way to show intelligence.

>>33128861
> i am too superior in my intelligence to offer an argument, so I will go now
okay

>>33129111
Thank you for informing us of your intentions, no one really cares though.

>>33128641
To answer your question and stop the back and forth of shitposting, it's doubtful that the gun would have displaced traditional avenues of HE support like aerial and naval strikes as well as standard long range artillery.

File: Churchill_Kangaroo_tank.jpg (177KB, 800x496px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x496px

Churchill Kangaroo

>>33108495
The Bren Carrier is fucking tiny.

>>33111436
No, that is an SMLE. Look at the cocking piece and rear sight.

>>33108495
Really, the best way to think of the universal carrier is to think of it as a jeep. It's a light utility vehicle primarily.

File: file.png (462KB, 734x512px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 734x512px

Russia using rabbit to test ATGM

>>33132324
.... but why?

>>33132758
Testing the overpressure effects, cant exactly stick a person in there.

>>33128536
ur wheels now
we're all wheels now
then we can drive over IED's and lose wars while blaming the politicians.

>>33124347
makes sense.

essentially in the US they have a district in kentucky, i think. they make tanks. the military dont want more, but this districts got a congressman.

so now the americans are unloading these onto the baltics states for a nice profit.

>>33133869
Its an American tank, not Estonian.

Estonia does not have the money or manpower to maintain and deploy heavy armor.

>>33127867
>>33127795
>>33126908
>>33126880

But with Boxer we get the lynx as well.

>>33120776
You've gotta give 'em credit; it only took them until 1945 to match 1942 German Armor.

>>33124347
You know, I feel like if we drove tanks around in our big parades more often we wouldn't have such issues securing military funding, or at least justifying it.

Like really, if I got to see an Abrams, or even an M60 or some mothballed pos, roll down main street on the 4th with my kid, I think neither of us would care that his favorite teacher was being cut for it.

>>33125562
Get them out where? The tank was never intended for export. It only existed because, at the time, Australia couldn't import.

If you mean "get them out against the Japanese", they might have done okay. If we just assume that the Australian supply problem solved itself but they just kept the AC-1 in service instead of tanks like the Matilda II, it would have likely performed just about the same; they're more or less the same tank after all, save the fact that for some reason they went with the Cruiser designation for a heavily armored and somewhat cumbersome vehicle. Of course, for the majority of the war, the Japs never had anything, afv-wise, that would give the 2pdr issues, and almost as few vehicles that mounted weapons that could really fuck up the Sentinel.

Now, interestingly, if you go with a scenario in which Commonwealth convoys failed to reach Australia and they were forced to fend for themselves for the duration of the war, there is little chance that they would have either A) somehow sought neutrality, or B) face a Japanese invasion. In the latter case, the AC-1 may have proven itself even more effective. In spite of the aforementioned Cruiser designation, the vehicle is rather well-suited to a more defensive style of combat, something which many tanks designed by both the UK and US (being the main contributors to Australian Armored strength) never saw on a strategic scale, at least certainly not after El Alamein.

File: 1466130401451.jpg (11KB, 250x204px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x204px

>>33132804
>War has broken out between the USSR and NATO
>The US devise a daring plot to disrupt Soviet weapons production
>US Paratrooper dropped deep in the Ural Mountains
>Sabotaging factories and doing other sneeki breeki
>Platoon happens upon a weapons testing facility
>The russians have run away
>Find a line of tanks at the opposite end of the field
>Crewed entirely by rabbits
>Report to your commander that the russians are training bunnies to drive T-62s
>mfw

>>33130443
doubtful how, you fucking cunt? Shermans ended up being used in the Pacific theatre in that exact role

>>33130443
They don't displace traditional means of HE giving, they supplement them. Especially in that time period, they're INCREDIBLY more accurate, and far more responsive.

>>33134815
Doubtful because both the proposed 6pdr and production 2pdr would have been nearly useless in a fire-support role against the Japanese timber and earth or concrete fortifications that gave even the M4's 75mm gun trouble.

>>33134961
that is exactly the point I am making, namely that the tank as designed would have been near useless in the Pacific. American 75 was reasonable, but the german short 75 would have been better (higher throw weight)

>>33134999
check'd

I won't lie; I wrote this bit >>33134514 then jumped down without reading much of that clusterfuck of an argument, so I'm not sure exactly who's been making what points.

That being said, I don't think it would be useless or even near it. It would have lacked the anti-fortification punch of the Sherman or equivalent tanks. It would have never come close to taking the role of bunker-busting from aircraft, artillery, or sappers. But if the AC-1 was being used then it would mean that it was the only tank to use. If things got that shitty for Australia, it's likely that what few tanks they had would have been put to some important use.

We could "shoudla, coulda, woulda" all day long about what would be better or worse than the AC-1, but the question was clear; anon wanted to know if the tank would have had an impact if it had been used. I say yes, but I agree that it wouldn't have made that impact while rolling around supporting infantry like and M4 or Matilda.

>>33134999
>American 75 was reasonable, but the german short 75 would have been better (higher throw weight)
I'm going to call BS here. The Sprgr. 34 fired by the Kwk 37 L/24 has 1 lb of explosive filler. The 75mm M48 out of any of a number of versions of the American 75mm gun has 1.5 lbs of explosive filler.

>>33111501

You are saying "vatnik" like it means anything.

>>33111501
>Soviet armor and weapons have always been fucking decades behind the west
>it has shown EVERYWHERE they have ever fought. Arabia, Africa, Yugoslavia, etc

I mean, yeah... because these nations are using decades old soviet equipment versus modern western armor. I'm a firm believer that the two sides are pretty evenly matched, but this is like arguing that all Russian tanks of WWII are shit because of how poorly the T-26 and T-28 performed against the Germans.

>>33115524
>firing ports
what a retarded idea, the US had it on the Bradley till the A2 because the complete cluster fuck the Bradley design was at first but why did the russians buy into this meme on the BMP-3 which was made well after the US abandoned the idea

>>33135249
Stop this

>>33135249
you dont know anything

>>33126892
have the aussies made up their mind on which vehicle is going to replace the ASLAV yet?

>>33134961
ask the australians how much they liked their matildas vs. the japanese

>>33135249
>hurrdurr pentagon wars
>anything ever on the Bradley must be shit

>>33135278
i didn't say the bradley is shit, i actually really like it i just think that firing ports and beyond useless.

File: 1477780544169.gif (1MB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x274px

>>33115524
>ground clearance changing
>BMP-3

>>33135249
>>33135286
Explain. They pose no real weakness in the armor layout, and while arguably a bit impractical on smaller vehicles, they hardly take anything away from the effectiveness of and IFV.

>>33135307
They are just pointless to waste time installing on a vehicle, they don't work in practice at all and serve no purpose other than adding more shiny shit on the list of stuff your vehicle can do.

>>33135270
Still in the final stages of testing. As for the m113as4 replacement that's still anybody's guess

>>33135307
They'll eventually get blocked over with applique armor of some sort. The expense in both time and money is probably not worth it, even if it is minimal. Besides, if you really want to be poking outside to fire, the air guard hatches work just fine most of the time. The only place that I can reasonably see a use for a firing port is on or right next to the rear door, just to ensure that it's clear if it's absolutely needed. Something that likely won't come up, but if it does, you'll be glad it's there. Said region won't get covered by applique armor.

>>33135326
>serve no purpose other than adding more shiny shit on the list of stuff your vehicle can do

Outside of circa 1940s Russia, I don't think this has ever been a problem for any army, at least not to this extent.

I mean, I know I'm oversimplifying things a bit here, but it seems like any opportunity you have to give an afv more ways to shoot at shit without weakening it is worth taking. I get the drawbacks. I get why we don't use them anymore. But I think it was worth at least starting out with.

>>33131242
how about compared to the M3 halftracks?

>>33135595
You could, but I see it closer to the jeep in size and role. Perhaps the comparison would be Jeep goes to Universal Carrier as Studebaker goes to any fullsize halftrack

File: BMP3.jpg (1MB, 2258x3496px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2258x3496px

>>33135303

>>33115434
Is that a KMW remote weapons station

>>33136131
FLW 200 same one as the Leopard 2A7+.

>>33135063
eh. I remember it being the heavier shell, overall. maybe I am wrong

>>33135063
yeah I just checked. M48 is heavier

>>33124364
It is when your country has no tanks, no jets and no combat vessels. Makes for a rather boring parade otherwise.

>>33126684
Looks like DM63

>>33117656

Worst part is that I'm pretty sure that a French WW1 unit made of trench warfare-hardened Poilus could be a threat to ISIS, most SAA formations, and every irregular force.

>>33137835
the standard of marksmanship alone...

>>33138107
I remember an AAR from the Algerian war where a legionnaire got shoot between the eyes at 800m by an old man with a lebel.
I'm always impressed by what dedicated people achieve with outdate equipment.
That being said, I'm not sure that french army rifle training during ww1 was really outstanding. Sure they began shooting in elementary school and an important part of the population was hunters, but they relied on shock far more than fire in their pre-war doctrine.

>>33138418
>I remember an AAR from the Algerian war where a legionnaire got shoot between the eyes at 800m by an old man with a lebel.
it's only impressive if it happens again

>>33138443
He got a second headshot at approx. 600m, then the approaching legion collumn killed him. No misses afaik.

>>33138619
ok then, impressiveness granted

>>33138619
Arabs used to have impressive marksmanship, usually during the time before WWII where the same SMLE was passed down through the tribal group and they would practice obsessively with it. After WWII that all changed with the AK.

>>33137835
The Syrian war of independence kinda showed the French could kick ass too.

File: bump.jpg (10KB, 207x244px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 207x244px

>>33108279

I like tanks

>>33127125
>DM63
>The DM63 round is based on the DM53, with modified propulsion-based Temperature Independent Propulsion System (TIPS) utilizing the SCDB technology. The new type uses 8.45 kg of pure bulk powder to achieve nearly the same muzzle velocity of the DM53 (1,650 m./sec on L44 barrel). The propellant modifications aimed at improving the accuracy through a wide operational temperatures (-46 +63C) ensuring safe operation extreme climate zones, and minimizing the erosion of the barrel

File: 90mm motor gun carriage M18.jpg (80KB, 959x529px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 959x529px

So, /thg/ what are some good youtube channels for this sort of thing? Haven't come across many myself.

>>33126892
>>33126908
Why is every next-gen wheeled AFV concept xboxhueg? I was under the impression that the LAV was already a bit big.

>>33144890
because uparmored and upgunned.

>>33144797
Probably what the Chieftain does for WoT.

>>33146037
If not the same guy...

>>33146037
Was hoping for literally anyone else, as him and MHV are the only ones I've heard of. Is that really that rare?

>>33146037
>>33146219
>>33146411
What does thg think of Lindybeige?

>>33147113
He's a hack for anything more modern than 1800, but that doesn't mean he has no redeeming qualities.

>>33147113
He's fond of making sweeping statements with little if any evidence supporting it. Don't trust anything he says just for him saying it, other than the practical stuff on everyday life things, like his video on torches.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/army-on-track-to-integrate-bigger-gun-on-stryker

Some news on this front, now we've got a clearer timeline.

>The Army started formal testing six weeks ago and so far has received six out of eight prototypes — as of Feb. 10 — at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Dean said. A couple of subject matter experts from the 2nd Cavalry have devised a plan for all of the soldier equipment that would be loaded into a Stryker to test realistic operational weight distribution, and soldiers even have had a chance to fire the cannon, he added.

>Later this summer, several 2nd Cavalry crews will arrive at Aberdeen to drive the vehicle, fire demonstration rounds and develop gunnery training plans, Dean said.

>In January next year, the first vehicle will arrive in Germany for an early user test with about a company’s worth of soldiers, and they will run through gunnery and tactical training and prove out the concept before the full brigade set of vehicles shows up later in 2018, he said.

>... fielding Javelin anti-tank capabilities to the 2nd Cavalry at the same time it receives the Stryker vehicles next year

>>33144797
The Great War channel does some pretty good stuff on WWI vehicles - keep an eye out for their special episodes.

>>33124432

>Just v-visting

Man, I'd be embarrassed to be a Polak or Estonian these days.

>>33147261
That timeline does not make sense...strykerbro was doing testing early last year. Might have been 20mm though...

>>33148200
Why?

as Ukraine showed, you either have Americans there or Russian volunteers on vacation.

>>33148226
It means there was a bit of LARPing going on.

Got a question /thg/. How does the Soviet Union go from, just before the war, having the most powerful tank-mounted cannon in the world, to at the end of the war having an 85mm that's inferior to it's contemporaries abroad in basically every way? Where did the expertise go? Or was the 45mm designed before the Purge and I'm a retard?

>>33149126

I'm going to guess that there wasn't a screaming need for a better medium tank gun, as the russians were 1) winning that war, and 2) using heavy tanks to do what other armies were accomplishing with medium tanks

File: M7B1 Priest.jpg (618KB, 1599x900px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 1599x900px

>>33108279
>repurposed into a protected infantry carrier with capacity for 20 men.

I’ve heard this number tossed about for years and I’m calling bullshit on it.

You ain’t getting _20_ guys into an M7 even if they’re packed in like sardines.

>>33149126
The 100mm gun the Soviets started using at the end of the war is what the T-55 used.

>>33149330
>into

They sit on top.

Remember, this was WW2, before the idea of APC's with roofs really caught on.

>>33149330
I count at least 13 in OP's picture, there's probably a few behind stuff you cant see plus the driver and co-driver/radio operator/bow gunner/whatever.
You do all sorts of stuff if you have to, packing 20 guys into that is very doable.

File: Formidable-adversary-_IDEX17D3_.jpg (69KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 752x423px

GD revealed the LAV 700 after the LAV 600 failed to make a splash

File: LAV700_GLDS_at_IDEX_2017_640_001.jpg (62KB, 640x464px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x464px

>>33149772

>>33149772
any stats about it?

>>33150000
>The CP version of the LAV 700 being shown at IDEX has a gross vehicle weight of 31,000kg, of which 11,000kg is the payload made up of crew, weapons, ammunition, onboard equipment and armour package. It is powered by a Caterpillar C13 diesel developing 711hp coupled to an Allison 2800 fully automatic transmission.

>Like the latest production Stryker (8x8) infantry carrier vehicles for the US Army, the LAV 700 features inherent mine blast protection due to its double-V hull. LAV 700 also features scalable ballistic protection, energy-absorbing seats and a laser warning system.

>Armament fitted includes a Kongsberg Protector remote weapon station, which is typically armed with a stabilised .50 M2 HB machine gun (MG) and a 7.62mm co-axial MG.

>Mounted on the roof towards the rear is a 7.62mm MG that is provided with a shield. Integrated into the roof on either side are banks of Galix grenade launchers, which are coupled to the laser detectors.

>A high level of cross-country mobility is possible due to the installation of independent hydro-pneumatic suspension with variable height control. The driver can select normal, transport or mine-high ground clearance. Cameras provide situational awareness through a full 360° and the open electronic architecture allows for the rapid installation of subsystems.

>While the LAV 700 on show at IDEX is in the CP version, there are many more variants including ambulance, armoured personnel carrier, command and control, direct and indirect fire support, anti-tank, security, reconnaissance and surveillance and repair/recovery vehicles.
I guess the new thing is scalable armor

>>33150028
that rear gun looks remote controlled, so that seems really awkward imo.
even less crewspace

>>33150060
>Mounted on the roof towards the rear is a 7.62mm MG that is provided with a shield.
As seen here >>33149820 it is just a mounted turret where the rear hatch would be
Also this is the command post variant, not the troop carrier

>>33150076
that obviously makes more sense than my stupid ass assumption with a glance over

File: M18-90mm gun 00.jpg (70KB, 800x619px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x619px

>>33113327
>Could some anon kindly explain how US TD doctrine worked in WWII?

The U.S. pre-war theory, (i.e pre combat experience) was that tank destroyers would be very fast but lightly armored vehicles with powerful guns optimized for armor penetration.

The TD units would be kept behind the lines at division and corps level and in the event of an enemy tank attack, they would use their speed to dash up to the front lines and use their powerful guns to pick off enemy tanks and stop the tank attack.

Not a bad idea but in reality, this didn’t quite work out as planned.

cont.

File: M18-90mm gun 01.png (2MB, 1796x726px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1796x726px

>>33150196

Only the M18 Hellcat TD achieved the desired speed but by the time it was available, it’s 76mm gun wasn’t up to snuff and the earlier M10 Wolverine, wasn’t any faster then the M4 Sherman it was based on and it’s 3” gun also wasn’t sufficient, as the Germans had continued to increase the armor levels and firepower of their existing tanks, as well as building much larger and heavier armed and armored tanks.

In addition, the M10s had a slew of issues that further decreased their performance; glacially slow unpowered turret traverse that necessitated heavy counter weights, excessively heavy engine that only slowed them down more, narrow tracks with poor flotation on soft ground, no hull or co-axial machine guns, which along with the open-topped turrets, left them vulnerable to infantry attacks as well as strafing from the air and artillery shrapnel.

cont.

File: M18-90mm gun 02.png (2MB, 1414x783px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1414x783px

>>33150205

But the problem was that the Germans didn’t conveniently do what Tank Destroyer Command wanted them to do.

It was quickly discovered that enemy tanks could be encountered anywhere and everywhere and thus American units needed TDs all the time right up on the front lines and by the time of Normandy, Allied airpower was such that the Germans couldn’t attack in large armored formations, further dispersing their tanks everywhere and anywhere.

Still despite all that, the TDs were decent combat vehicles and the utter reliability of American automotive manufacturing and the recklessly aggressive TD crews, meant the U.S. TD units racked up plenty of kills in the war but afterwards, they were quickly dropped from U.S. formations (but continued to be used by foreign armies) and replaced with actual tanks and large numbers of recoilless anti-tank rifles.

File: IMG_1332.jpg (107KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 960x720px

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/28/army-give-m1-tank-new-ammo-active-protection-system/

File: 1473741877161.jpg (82KB, 1023x809px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1023x809px

>>33150226

Military-industrial Complex, please.

“Sequestration and the Budget Control Act have forced the Army to pursue this incremental modernization plan,” said retired Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr, director of the Heritage Foundation. “Meanwhile, our adversaries continue to produce revolutionary designs for tanks, antitank guided missiles, personnel carriers, fire support and air defense systems.”

Russia, a country with a gross domestic product lower than Brazil, managed to design the new T14 tank “with fully-integrated reactive armor, fully-integrated active protection system and an automated turret,” Spoehr said.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute agreed, saying, “If the Russians invaded Eastern Europe tomorrow, the U.S. Army would be overrun.”

So despite knocking out Hillary and her NeoCon Cold War II: Electric Putin Boogaloo plan, we’re still going to cite the Ruskies as a threat and blow bazillions of tax payer dollars down the drain?

>>33150349
>thinks the MIC is real
>doesn't actually refute anything

File: Fred Thompson.gif (47KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x225px

>>33150426
> the sky is blue
> cite!

>>33150216
>It was quickly discovered that enemy tanks could be encountered anywhere and everywhere and thus American units needed TDs all the time right up on the front lines and by the time of Normandy, Allied airpower was such that the Germans couldn’t attack in large armored formations, further dispersing their tanks everywhere and anywhere.
I don't think you understand Tank Destroyer doctrine. By the point in the war that tank destroyers could make their mark, Germany was in no position to launch concentrated armor offensives on the Western Front. The one time that they did, tank destroyers racked up impressive kill:loss ratios. So the problem with tank destroyer doctrine was that Germany was beaten, and thus the threat they were designed to counter only materialized once. If you had placed said units on the Eastern Front, they'd have proven their worth 10 times over.

File: M10 Grand Blanc MI.jpg (667KB, 1200x949px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 1200x949px

>>33150526
> So the problem with tank destroyer doctrine was that Germany was beaten

Absolute nonsense, the U.S. was fully engaged with the Germans from late 1942 until the end of the war.

To suggest there weren’t enough German tanks in France to worry about, is straight-up retarded (and Russian).

>>33150440
>a conspiracy theory is the same as looking up at the sky

File: fy2013-proposed-dicretionary-np.jpg (51KB, 648x504px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 648x504px

>>33150702
>conspiracy theory

>>33150761
>discretionary spending

File: POTHOLES.jpg (381KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1536x1024px

>>33150792
> so it's ok

>>33150857
>potholes
>federal responsibility

>>33149772
>>33149808

Are these licensed from MOWAG or their own design?

So many of these fucking wheeled AFVs now available.

Who is even buying this shit?
Obviously not countries which take war seriously..

>>33150426

There is no doubt a Shadow Government in place, and Trump's election has blatantly revealed their existence, working against the new White House, and even making discrete threats against them. They also politically assassinated Flynn because he was too friendly with Russia, and the Shadow Government wants a confrontation with Russia, and regime change in Syria. Trump is already being reeled in.

But no matter what, APS is absolutely mandatory on any tank today. Any vehicle without APS as of recently can be considered obsolete, since Hillary gave out ATGMs to every sand nigger promising to fight MUH DICTATOR Assad.

File: 1282741252017.jpg (97KB, 800x594px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x594px

Would it be fair to say that the Jackal is a modern incarnation of the UC concept? Light, air transportable go-anywhere vehicle that can carry troops, cargo, guns or tow artillery, or be used as a recon platform at will.

File: money to burn.jpg (34KB, 535x335px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 535x335px

>>33150872
> 57% of tax payer's money going to military

>>33151071
>I don't know what discretionary spending is

File: Money-tree.jpg (295KB, 693x693px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 693x693px

>>33151096
> I don't know what taxes are

>>33151166
>57% of discretionary spending is 57% of taxpayers money spent in the federal budget

File: 93207145.jpg (504KB, 980x551px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 980x551px

The IDF have decommissioned the Pereh ATGM tank, and disbanded the Meitar special artillery unit operating them, as of January 2017.
The tank had been in service for over 30 years.

>>33151096

What IS discretionary spending? ANd how does that help your argument?

>>33150605
The US only once engaged German forces that were capable of launching a massed armored offensive. In France, they were incapable of doing so for a great many reasons, not the least of which is being in an absolute retreat. So no, look at things how they actually were. Do you think Germany was capable of sending a whole Panzer Corps on the offensive against the Americans at any time except the final months of 1944?

>>33151455
Really amazing how they managed keeping these things secret all those years. I actually never knew it existed before I was stationed with a Pereh crew in the same outpost.

File: 1384742369609.png (112KB, 892x2586px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 892x2586px

>>33148200

>>33150205
>no hull or co-axial machine guns, which along with the open-topped turrets, left them vulnerable to infantry attacks as well as strafing from the air and artillery shrapnel
this of course goes for all american tracked TDs that saw service except the m36b1, which retained the M4A3's bow mg. folding roof kits were developed for the m36, but not until late in the war

>>33151765
They kept it secret from the public, but it's possible the Syrians learned of its existence via the Tannenbaum kidnapping.

>>33151611
If you don't know the basic structure of the US federal budget you have no business commenting.

>>33151012
no, the modern equivalent is the CRV(T)

File: panther 1393444123967.png (2MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x1050px

>>33151618
>Do you think Germany was capable of sending a whole Panzer Corps on the offensive against the Americans at any time except the final months of 1944?

Do you think there weren't any German armored divisions in Normandy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy#Armoured_reserves

>>33153226
there are a myriad of reasons why there was no concentrated armoured counter-attack in Normandy

>>33153226
Ah, you're ignoring what I said. Perhaps because you don't have a counterargument. The armored forces available were not able to make a counterattack en masse for a number of reasons until the last months of 1944. But you can't seem to grasp that.