Why did the Soviets place so much emphasis on amphibious capability

>>33344981
the keyword is mobility, hit the enemy where he least expects it. Also, you can use them to land troops from a ship off shore. Anyway...didn't the U S of A have APCs with of all things, aluminium armor? The soviets at least had the common sense to use steel. GR8B8M8

File: kuz 1.jpg (30KB, 633x395px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 633x395px

To compensate for their navy

>>33345019
>didn't the U S of A have APCs with of all things, aluminium armor?

The difference is that the USA switched to heavy composites (That were also thick enough to mount ERA) that could withstand fucking RPGs whereas the Soviets never went past their single layer of thin steel that is still defeated by 7.62 to this day

>hit the enemy where he least expects it
hard to do that when in any ww3 scenario the enemy expects you to be literally everywhere

>>33345035
>The difference is that the USA switched to heavy composites
After the Soviets did, and OP was talking about light vehicles like APCs and SPGs.

>After the Soviets did
With what, exactly? the btr-82's armor is no better than the btr-60

>>33344981
Historically the naval infantry in Soviet times was placed and ready to be deployed in areas of importance to the USSR (Mediterranean, Indian ocean, Africa etc). That meant their vehicles in addition to ways of getting them from ship to shore as rapidly as possible, then continue that momentum as motorised infantry.

Course, their training to actually do it was fairly rubbish to non existent and they fuck all amphibious landing ships, so their power projection was quite limited. Slav's and boats tend to be a nonsense/hysterically funny/tragic affair at the best of times though.

You cannot count on existing bridges. Many rivers, especially near their estuary are too wide for a standard bridge layer. See A Bridge Too Far's Arnhem scenes, the Warsaw Pact thrust into western Eueope would be having to basically so that in reverse. Also, the more vehicles which don't rely on bridges, the less bad the congestion at these choke points.

The rate of advance was planned in hours, and it was expected that tactical nukes would be used by both sides. Speed was of the essence, any delay might be a disaster.

>>33345062
>With what, exactly?
T-64.
Apart from Russian and Israeli heavy APCs no others have composites.

>>33345537
Soviets didn't use "heavy tanks" according to their own classification. T-64 was "medium".

>>33345558
What?

As a response to you odd tangent, what is the T-10M?

>>33345586
>what is the T-10M
Leftovers from Stalin's times.

File: 1481318387321.jpg (172KB, 777x777px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 777x777px

>>33344981
Because they expected that at some point in the future they'd have to invade Europe. Europe has a lot of rivers that run north-south, which gets in the way of an advancing army traveling east to west. Having amphibious armored vehicles meant that Russian infantry didn't need to secure bridges and bridge heads to get their battle taxis across said rivers.

>>33345608
>Soviets didn't use "heavy tanks"

>>33345638
>>33345608
I understand this is 4chinz so yall need to argue and shit post but the OP does bring up and excellent point the US needs to acknowledge.

In our quest for tank dominance we've sacrificed a lot of mobility compared to other nations. Our amphibious tanks and our air dropped tanks are behind other nations or non existent

I have a hairy asshole please smell it

>>33345646
Who needs those things when you have the most powerful navy on earth and can ship anything across the sea virtually uncontested?

>>33344981
Russia itself has tons of rivers.

>>33345035
>The difference is that the USA switched to heavy composites (That were also thick enough to mount ERA) that could withstand fucking RPGs whereas the Soviets never went past their single layer of thin steel that is still defeated by 7.62 to this day
lolsto?

>hard to do that when in any ww3 scenario the enemy expects you to be literally everywhere
the fuck does this even mean?

>>33345646
see here >>33345035
>The difference is that the USA switched to heavy composites
Thats where this disjointed conversation started.
Since Soviet amphibious vehicles (BTR-80, BMP-3, 2S1, ect) and their US equivalents don't use ''heavy composites'' it was a complete non sequitur. And the replies have been continuously irrelevant. Such as this one >>33345646

>>33345646
>Our amphibious tanks and our air dropped tanks are behind other nations or non existent
You don't need this. For purpose of air transportation you have Strykers which are BTR-80 rip-offs.

>>33345019

BMP family is made of aluminium.

>>33344981
>Mobile bridge layers or pre-existing bridges exist
Not in nuclear world where NATO amassed 20000 nuclear tactical warheads in the Europe.

>>33346463
BMP-1/2 are steel, BMD-1/2/3/4 and BMP-3 are aluminium.

File: general_map.jpg (96KB, 728x588px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 728x588px

>>33344981
Because look at the map of Europe and stop asking silly questions.

File: t-64a (1).jpg (1MB, 1200x933px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x933px

>>33345558
Object 432 was classified as a medium tank. The actual T-64A (aka Object 434) was classified as MBT.
>>33345586
Comparing it side by side T-10M was really not that much different from M60.

>>33344981
Because NATO was going to blow the shit out of as many bridges and do a scorched Earth plan if it came to that amphibious makes that a mute point

>>33345656
>Who needs those things when you have the most powerful navy on earth and can ship anything across the sea virtually uncontested?
we can do that now because the Russian military is a shell of what it was during the Soviet era. If push came to shove during the 1970s/80s then our Navy would have suffered substantial losses against the Soviets.

90% of Russia is uninhabitable and undeveloped wilderness. You need an army that can get to place where there are no bridges, no charted fords, etc.

>>33347073
HAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHA
HAHA... hold on...
...
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

>>33345035
Provide one example of american era. Oh wait, you can't, because you're full of shit.

File: m2_bradley[1].jpg (81KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x400px

>>33347499
Hmm...

File: 1489104463386.jpg (12KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 224x225px

>>33344981
>Why did the Soviets place so much emphasis on amphibious capability for their armored vehicles?
Out of experience.
/thread

Yes, I'm self' /threading

OP should read a book or at least look at the map.
OP is worse than a fag.

File: P-270 Missile.jpg (113KB, 800x1133px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x1133px

>>33347139
>he's never seen a Soviet AShM
wew

>>33347559
Oh, you mean the thing that will be blown out of the sky by an SM-2 before it gets anywhere close? Nevermind the fact that the entire Soviet battle group would be raped by even a single carrier's worth of F-18s before it got within engagement range?

What's next, "muh submarines"? Which are all loud as fuck and easy prey for America's own attack submarines?

>>33345030
They invest all navy money in the subs
Kuznetsov it's just something for prestige imo

>>33347576
you're the
>M-MUH NAVY!!!
>M-MUH CARRIERS!!!!!
>NEED MO' CARRIERS!!!!
>TRUMP PRES NAO! MO' CARRIERS!!! WHEEERWWWW!!!!!
threadmaking autist, arn't you?

>>33347600
No, I'm someone using common sense you retarded slavaboo.

File: 20140829_150509.jpg (187KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x480px

>>33345035
i have a BRDM-2 and have fired countless .303 British at it , not so much as a dent
Pic related

>>33347603
Hey I just got here, the levels in anything sea-related damn near surpasses /arg/ levels.

But I do give you two hard-heads some credit: where /arg/ is just photo-ops and rambling of retards, you nuts do tend to whip out mo' hard numbers and facts, instead of senseless ramblings.

Obviously in retrospect having so little armor on so many vehicles is a major problem in almost every conflict they have been used in so far.

Would modular armor kits have been a better idea?
If you reach a river you take of the heavy kit bits, pass over and apply the armor again or just leave it if you're in a rush for berlin.

>>33347661
Sounds like something you need logistics to do, and the Soviets were never good at that.

>>33345646
>Our amphibious tanks and our air dropped tanks are behind other nations or non existent

There are other nations with militaries?

>>33347621
One day I'll get an APC and drive it around town and shit, take it to the range and offer it as a target before driving it home.

One day.

File: 1481075767479.jpg (33KB, 511x501px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 511x501px

>>33347621
restore that thing before I come to your house and slap your shit. I'd kill for a BRDM and here you are using yours for target practice.

>>33344981
Why do russians love cats so much?

I thought only the germans liked cats.

>>33347853
I will answer if you explain why Americans kiss their dogs in the mouth

>>33347874
Because it's hot as fuck to see girls give their bodies uo and allow themselfs to be dominated and fucked by dogs and horses and any beasts except for blacks they're niggers.

>>33347836
Doing the engine and running gear at the moment, the paint work doesn't do it justice but it was half buried and probably would have been scrapped if I hadn't found it

>>33345443
This. Soviet doctrine called for relentless, rapid advance to deny western forces the opportunity to consolidate and for US forces to reach the theater. It was expected that an MRD (Motor Rifle Division) would be advancing without support elements. Engineering and artillery units were attached at a much higher level (corps) than NATO forces, which usually had organic artillery and engineering at the bridge level.

>>33347922
you're doing god's work, anon. You should post some project pics on here sometime.

>the paint work doesn't do it justice but it was half buried and probably would have been scrapped if I hadn't found it
where DID you find it? I would've thought that you'd gotten it from a storage yard.

>>33347976
>It was expected that an MRD (Motor Rifle Division) would be advancing

Which is not a smart thing, because if a soviet unit advances without support, it almost always gets slaughtered by NATO in any type of engagement. BMPs/BTRs have paper for armor and not much in the way of dealing with NATO heavy tanks... their amphibious AA was proven ineffective in countless wars (SA-9/SA-13 don't even have a 50% hit rate) and advancing without artillery is nearly impossible in such an ATGM-heavy environment

>>33348036
A guy 3 villages over nought it from the Saudi's during the 80s because he was scared of the bomb, brought it back to England and buried it to make a bunker

Bought it off his son for £350, so spent upwards of £5000 on parts and tools, done all the work myself though

Don't have many pics but will post what I have soon, it's currently in bits in the back of a barn

>>33348110
Probably wouldn't have done this normally but it's an amazingly rare variation that I just couldn't let rust

>>33346527
One of those BDMs are Magnesium alloy, which ignited into a fireball when hit in certain places, which they promptly ceased production of after a couple exploded.

>>33348110
>>33348122
>done all the work myself though
that's pretty impressive. I wanna import some East Bloc vehicles eventually but I'm not sure whether I would be able to perform maintenance on them. It would definitely be a learning experience.

what variant is it?

>>33347576
>SM-2
>1970/early80's

You goof, the USN and pals had shit all for missile defense back then.

They were limited to Sea Sparrows (Navy AIM-7, which requires your ships radar to illuminate the target for it to guide into) and the shitty early version Phalanx that hit friendly ships more often than targets.


This is why they had carrier born interceptors to kill the incoming Soviet bombers carrying the AShMs and the targeting aircraft for ship launch AShMs, BEFORE they would launch, because God help them all once they did launch and acquire their ship as a target.

>>33348179
Do it, never have so much emotion over a lump of steel, and they're designed to be fixed by Ivan the Uneducated conscript so with a basic spanner set you can fix anything on them

It's a early model - which are rare enough as it is
Mortar variant, almost all of which were modified onto the normal turret variant

File: 20140829_150639 - Copy.jpg (175KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 640x480px

>>33348246
underneath the hatch should be a mortar, the vehicle moves to a known location and using the targeting computer (which runs on clockwork) dials in where they want the shell to land, it then tells them what angle and bearing to fire the round at. then so you cant get zeroed in on , you change location and the targeting computer once again tells you where to fire

File: 20140829_150522.jpg (192KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 640x480px

>>33348267

>>33347621
>>33348246
Will she still float? No major rust holes in it?

>Canuck that really wants one
>want to put a modern engine in it

File: 20140829_150536.jpg (152KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 640x480px

>>33348274

>>33348037
The actual Soviet doctrine was for breakthrough units to avoid combat in favor of continually advancing as to disrupt NATO logistics and tie down units that would otherwise be sent to the front.

>>33348281
it uses a bilge pump running of the main driveshaft so pump water out so until i have that running i dont want to test it.

there's no major rust anywhere, the steel is of such a good a quality that its only cosmetic rust, no perished steel anywhere

also its got a sweet V8 in the back to begin with so doesn't need changing

>>33348288
>front

What front? WW3 was bound to be a clusterfuck with units all over the place where NATO was either defending or in a meeting engagement, both areas they were heavily supeior in.

>disrupt NATO logistics
Disrupted NATO logistics are still better than awful Soviet logistics that, after the air war, straight up would not exist

>tie down units
Yeah they sure are holding down NATO forces by exploding if they even get in their line of sight

File: 20140829_150515.jpg (191KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 640x480px

>>33348285

File: 960.jpg (70KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 960x540px

>>33347027
>Mute point
>mute
How do I reach these keeeeds??

>>33348326
Why do all you fags post without knowing anything of the era and its tech? Next you are gunna start posting that the soviets nukes never actually worked.

File: 20140413_120357.jpg (156KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 640x480px

>>33348329
thought i'd also post my UAZ-469 for good measure

>>33348347
>without knowing anything of the era and its tech?
The only ones guilty of this are retarded slavaboos who think that large quantities of awful equipment were ever better than having a decent number of good equipment

You fucking tell me how the Soviets are supposed to win any fight when superior NATO optics allow them to see (and shoot) first, when NATO can kill their tanks but the Soviets can't do vice versa, and when their air force may as well not even exist against enemies with superior numbers of superior aircraft flown by superior pilots.
As we've discussed before, the fucking Arab-Israeli wars are all the proof you need, and "muh arab crews" is not an excuse since the Soviets themselves also made their units out of fucking illiterate conscripts.

>>33348374
>You fucking tell me how the Soviets are supposed to win any fight when superior NATO optics

Which are not a granted in 50s-70s, furthermore, since something like 95% of direct fire combat would occur within 2000m, I think this advantage is somewhat exaggerated until the late 70s and 80s

>>33348246
>Do it, never have so much emotion over a lump of steel
I really ought to, I think I'll start off with a UAZ jeep/breadloaf before I move on to the big stuff tho.

>>33348267
I didn't even know the mortar variant had a targeting computer, that's pretty neat. Is any of it still there?

>>33348348
that's sweet as fuck. Are you a collector?

File: 4db.png (60KB, 860x650px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 860x650px

>>33348374
>the Soviets themselves also made their units out of fucking illiterate conscripts
>he doesn't know that the Soviet Union's male literacy rate was almost 90%
>in 1937

Do you have any proofs to back up your claims, or are you just going to spout memes like a retard?

>>33348314
>Engine: GAZ-41 gasoline V-8
140 hp (104 kW) at 3,400rpm

>Power/weight: 18.2hp/tonne (13.5kW/tonne)

>sweet V8

No, sans-LOL.

My in line 4cyl car engine out does that old GAZ.

It needs a real V8.

>>33348449
Uaz's are fun, easy to work on and are as reliable as a pack mule

Targeting computer is still there, needs rebuilding and recalibration.

Not originally, bought the uaz drunk, the brdm2 on impulse and the dnepr motorcycle was an accidental ebay purchase, sort of accidentally became one

>>33348515
It's reliable, can be fixed in 5 mins and has a fair amount of work to do
From an engineering point of view, it's fit for purpose and does it very well

>>33348515
>My in line 4cyl car engine out does that old GAZ.
you can say that about almost any old V8, they're hilariously inefficient compared to modern engines. I would still argue that the original is fine as long as you are able to service it, you really don't need a powerhouse of an engine to move an old scout car.
>inb4 need

>>33348519
>bought the uaz drunk, the brdm2 on impulse and the dnepr motorcycle was an accidental ebay purchase
kek. How do accidentally buy a Dnepr? Is it one of the OG ones or is it a newer one?

File: completed-water-break-retaining-wall.jpg (77KB, 750x347px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 750x347px

>>33344981
It has its uses. The big problem with all amphibious vehicles however is that the areas where it would be best suited for, eg: where a heavy bridge has been blown or blocked, tend to also be areas that have heavy retaining walls that are difficult at best to scale with your vehicle.

>>33348543
>>33348569
Find an old Ford GAA 1,100ci block and drop it in there since you're in Europe (almost impossible to find in North America).

You'll be able to give Porches a run for their money in a BDRM2.

File: received_10208185028364838.jpg (46KB, 614x461px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 614x461px

>>33348569
Put a really low bid on, no one else bid, it's a 1971, needed some welding and a engine rebuild but runs like a charm now

>>33348237
>You goof, the USN and pals had shit all for missile defense back then.
>The First Standard missiles entered service in the USN in 1967. Blocks I, II, and III were preliminary versions. Block IV was the production version. This missile was a replacement for the earlier RIM-24C Tartar missile.

>The RIM-66C was the first version of the Standard missile two. The missile became operational in 1978

just kys already

>>33348609
I'm keeping it original for ease of maintenance, its also a fairly complex engine bay with the engine running 2 alternators, hydraulic pump, air compressor and 2 cooling fans

On top of that it's the wrong way round, is in a confined space and has a complex clutch and gearbox arrangement

Keep it simple stupid

File: 1477262854564.png (781KB, 1027x701px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1027x701px

>>33348609
sounds like something you'd see in the Russian adaptation of Initial D.
>Second Stage, Episode 13: Blazing Ural Drift!

>>33348610
mind if I ask how much you paid? That's a sick setup.

>>33348724
£275 + £100 shipping

Spent a lot on it since then

>>33347661
It's more of an issue now because these vehicles were designed for a rapid, fluid, and mobile WWIII in a counter thrust through the Fulda Gap against Soviet armor hordes. Speed was of the essence.

Now they've been relegated to tasks they are ill suited to--namely urban fighting and occupation.

>>33348326
You're an idiot. The whole Cold War was centered around Europe and the divide between East and West there. Pretty much every American and Soviet design of the time was intended to be used in Eastern Europe.

>>33349625
Yeah, and NATO would have won.

>>33349637
You seem to forget it wasn't Russia vs all. The Warsaw Pact was a thing. They had local numeric superiority and the US was bogged down in numerous doctrinal quagmires that would've proved deadly.

If the initial engagement had been a loss for NATO, which is conceivable, it would be very difficult for the US to regain the initiative barring any massive Soviet blunders. It would take a very long time for the US--the bulk of NATO's military--to mobilize and arrive en masse Europe. Just look at all the REFORGER (REturn of FORces to GERmany) exercises we conducted out of that fear that only served to corroborate what a nightmare it would be.

If I had to hazard a guess I would say NATO eventually would've came out on top, but such an outcome is never a given. That attitude of assured victory over an inferior adversary is what leads to the royal assbeatings of history.

>>33349774
>The Warsaw Pact was a thing
with milataries even worse than Iraq's lmao
>They had local numeric superiority
numbers mean nothing in modern warfare
>US was bogged down in numerous doctrinal quagmires
>US
>ever needing doctrine

>it would be very difficult for the US to regain the initiative
it's called attack at night where the soviets had next to no capability

>That attitude of assured victory over an inferior adversary is what leads to the royal assbeatings of history.
except for the part where the USA has done that over and over again in the past yet to this date has still never lost a war

File: 1467990127415.gif (72KB, 175x175px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 175x175px

>>33349774
>except for the part where the USA has done that over and over again in the past yet to this date has still never lost a war
>yet to this date has still never lost a war
o I am laffin

>>33349950
wew, I meant to be condescending to >>33349850

>>33348642
winner.

>>33345019
>The soviets at least had the common sense to use steel.

Ballistic tests were why 5083 was chosen. Melted M113s are irrelevant since a hull loss is a hull loss.

Now that IEDs and ATGW have rendered anything less than an MBT or IFV with APS instantly dead in nation state war we laugh at using tracks for "mobility" instead of carrying the heaviest armor we can get, but in ancient times mobility was an advantage and so was the ability to rapidly cross rivers during an advance. Now there is no need for speed, wars are not fought in jungle, and light vehicles only linger in utility roles where they don't have to be good, just be available.

>>33349961
It's not even worth dignifying what he said with a response.

File: walrus.jpg (24KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 443x332px

>>33347579
>Kuznetsov it's just something for prestige imo
How much prestige is generated by a ship that appears to be on fire?

>>33347836
Here you go anon
http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/armoured-vehicles-4/brdm-2-76#currency=USD

File: IMG_0607.gif (22KB, 255x170px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 255x170px

>>33350014
>now there is no need for speed

You would be fun to engage in real battle.

>>33350054
Don't buy from them... All of there stuff is dragged off a scrap heap, re painted and sold as new.

>>33345633
kind of a good weekend

>>33347661
>Obviously in retrospect having so little armor on so many vehicles is a major problem in almost every conflict they have been used in so far.

Or was it? M113 was useful for MOBILITY in Viet Nam, but armor creates the expectation of invulnerability. Infantry are without vehicles are pedestrians.

We'll never fight in jungle again (and really should cede Asia to China since it's not America) so we don't need M113 style anything any more, but some users like the Phillipines and Viet Nam do.

>>33348515
What matters is where it develops the torque.

>>33348173
It is aluminum magnesium alloy similar to AA5059.

>>33349950
>>33349961
>>33350034
It's true though. The USA has never lost a war.
>inb4 muh vietnam

Lost entirely for political reasons. The battles were all won.

File: 1452824486627.gif (75KB, 348x349px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 348x349px

>>33348740
still seems like a damn good deal. even with the work that had to be done on it.

>>33350054
>mfw they dropped the price since last time I saw the page

>>33350078
proofs? I wouldn't doubt it since shady shit is somewhat common in the milsurp vehicle market.

>>33345019
The soviets once made an air droppable APC with magnesium armor.

It went about as well as you would expect the first time one of them caught a rpg.

File: BMP-1P.jpg (311KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 800x533px

B(u)MP

File: burn baby burn.jpg (868KB, 1396x1816px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 1396x1816px

>>33350014
>Ballistic tests were why 5083 was chosen.
5083 has slight advantage over RHA against large fragments (20mm FSP) it worse against armor piercing bullets. 5083 is worse against high-harness steel in all application. 5083 on M-113 is Alcoa lobbying for sweet government bucks.

Also read this.

>>33350038
Well, prestige went wrong

Because the soviet overland strategy was to co-op blitzkrieg concepts from WWII and use them in conjunction with ICBMs and aerial weapons technology to "outrun" the nuclear arsenals of foreign countries. Since the reliance on bridges was one of the key failings of the German blitzkrieg strategy, shifting towards cavalry and mechanized infantry with amphibious functions was a natural advancement.

really looking into the military doctrines when it comes to land battles of the cold war is pretty interesting. Since everyone just assumed that nuclear war would kick off, heavily defensible static positions and slow-moving support columns were treated as obsolete by many European continental militaries. It came around to bite Russia in the ass in the Middle East too throughout the 80s and 90s, since their land yachts get fucked up by ATGWs and IEDs, and lack of support units is pretty deadly in a big open desert.

Comparatively, U.S. forces have had similar issues with land vehicles but the destruction of a HMMV or MRAP is generally less prohibitive when you have a column of 5 or 6 rather than a 2 or 3 APCs. Additionally the reliance on air support by the U.S.makes military action on the ground slower but typically much safer.

>>33347559
>target profile literally the size of a small jet fighter

bruh

>>33348237
>>33347576

You'er both right. Standard Missile Series was around in time for the Vietnam War, but they weren't nearly as good as they are now. They're literally lightyears better with modern versions.

>>33353617
>Because the soviet overland strategy was to co-op blitzkrieg concepts from WWII

Deep Battle was a part of Soviet operational doctrine since before WWII. They didn't co-op shit. Almost all of Soviet strategy, tactics, even equipment was based off of experience from their own operations during WWII. The offensive into West Germany was to be modeled on Bagration.

>>33350078
All military surplus is dragged of the scrap heap
I don't give a shit, as long as it runs. I can weld and fabricate shit if I need it and you could even reengine it if you had to.

>>33348173
>>33351441
I cant find a single source for the cast magnesium armor that the BMD's early models supposedly used. Looking at the wikipedia page history since 2005 it never had a source.

>>33351178
Been to their workshop when I bought my uaz.
>>33353881
I know but for the money your paying and the way its advertised you'd expect to have something in half decent condition.

Probably because NATOs airforce could fuck up all of the bridges if they went to war.

>>33352848
neat paper, thanks

File: 20140607_230424.jpg (137KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 640x480px

>>33348519
targeting computer as mentioned, finds your location using a gyro compass and running of the tachometer to know how far you've gone, even takes into account slope and wheel spin.

quite a cool bit of kit, runs on a combination of clockwork and relays

>>33344981
Because amphib is super useful and they're not pussies who need tons of armour.

>>33348281

Not worth paying $10k to haul a scout car over.

Buy a humvee instead.
Not too hard to get a road license for it and since it's US built much easier to maintain. Still a bitch but easier.

File: la-largemap.png (75KB, 756x550px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 756x550px

>>33347122

>>33356481
that is seriously fucking cool
you got a mortar section leader's vehicle