Can LAV's function as tank destroyers?

>>33738692
is this supposed to be a troll thread? or you are just incredibly stupid?

>>33738702
this is a board that largely considers the sherman the best tank of the war
you can't really give him shit for this

>>33740420

Here's a 45 minute video carefully detailing why the Sherman was good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

>>33738692
Yup. Battlefield 4 says they can.

>>33740588
like anything American, it was introduced too late, mediocre, and grossly historically overhyped

Soviets won the war in Europe.
Brits had the second largest contribution.

What do most Americans believe?

File: mmu.jpg (400KB, 1500x850px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1500x850px

>>33740420
Sherman's were one of, if not the, best tanks of WW2.

That doesn't change the fact that OP's picture is neither an LAV or a tank destroyer, but pic related is.

>>33740699
The British contribution to WW2 was being an unsinkable airstrip.

>>33740706
active protection systems will pretty much make atgm "tank destroyers" a bad joke in a few years if they hadn't already.

the 105mm low recoil gun is only a threat to ww2 era armor tho.

File: 16251581_1438410512856465_4331885371377827344_o.jpg (606KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 2048x1365px

>>33740746
Good thing the 105mm M68A2 gun in OP's picture is not a low pressure gun.

>>33740699

Awful bait for the Americans to try and throw them at others.

maybe if you coated it in TOW missiles

>>33740812
That's a Stryker, not a LAV though.

>>33740812
never said low pressure just that low recoil. it's still a ww2 era gun it was the centurions.

File: M1128 MGS from 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division at Baqubah 3.jpg (126KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x512px

>>33740911
Yes, so is this and the OP's picture.

>>33740953
You didn't know the difference between a low recoil and low pressure gun, but assumed low recoil meant low penetration.

The Centurion had a 17 pounder in WW2.

>>33738692
LAV-TOW can

>>33740988
low recoil means low muzzle energy not low pressure are you gonna embarrass yourself further?

>>33740699
I don't know, what do the Russians believe?

>>33740812
I got to work with 5-1 cab during a live fire during their last NTC rotation it's a cool group of guys that let us borrow a pick axe from their pioneer tools

>>33738692
The Stryker (in your pic) and the LAV both have ATGM variants.

>>33741045
i wouldnt know

what i believe is the US has only won 3 major armed conflicts in its history
2 of those were civil wars
the last 1 they won with high altitude terror bombing

>>33740718
People often overlook just how many British forces were involved at all stages of the war.
Movies make it look like small specialised strikes, but it wasn't just that at all.

File: lend lease.jpg (1MB, 1557x1285px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1557x1285px

>>33741045

>>33741020
No, it doesn't. A DM63 fired out of low recoil guns like RUAG's Compact Tank Gun or Rheinmetall's LLR/L47 do not have reduced muzzle energy because they fire at full pressure.

You need to learn your terminology before you accuse others of embarrassing themselves.

I'm lost here, is the stryker just a lav3 without a turret?

>>33741292
More or less, anons are splitting hairs.

File: 1489856364125.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>33740588

>>33743297
whoop, this is supposed to go here: >>33740699

>>33740588
He sounds like an irish immigrant that joined the us army.

>>33738692
You mean, Gun Motor Carriage, right?

>>33738692
Former LAV25 vehicle commander checking in (2 deployments).

>TOW
So as another anon said, there are TOW variants that have that capability, but whether or not they actually try to take out a tank is going to largely be determined by the terrain. The "hammerhead" missile launcher that raises out of the vehicle is best deployed when that's the only thing exposed, and the rest of the vehicles is covered behind a hill or battle position. But in each LAR company, you're only going to have 2 TOW variants, so the chances that a LAR company wants to tangle with a full armour opponent is low.

>LAV-25mm
Further, the 25mm variants have two types of rounds that can penetrate armor. There's the AP round which is fin-stabilized with a tungsten penetrator. That can take of any light armor threat and maybe some medium armor (but probably not). However, there is also the very uncommon uranium-depleted rounds that the 25mm can be outfitted with. I never saw these, but apparently they're more capable that the tugsten. These rounds were some secret squirrel shit, and so not much was passed around about them Apparently, if there was ever a conflict where these were needed, we could get them.

So, the answer is "Yes, if there is no other option to take out a tank, an LAR company has the internal resources to take small units of heavy arrmor out."

File: m68 l7 t254.png (177KB, 1100x1506px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1100x1506px

>>33740953
>L7
>M68
>same gun

I know you're shitposting and everything, but this is a common misconception. Only the barrels were interchangable.

>>33740420
You see Ivan, having the biggest, super duper monster tank is useless when you can't make enough of them in the shortest time possible at the optimum cost. No shit the Sherman pales in comparison to late war Kraut tanks but, as BBfags had learnt earlier, one big fat slow expensive unit can't be two places at once. It was a War of Industries, not weapons as long as they work.

>>33744190
Hey I was a scout in LAR for 6 years

>>33741054
Too bad they didn't do dick all. Try telling my CO that you think M1126's can take on tanks.

>>33740699
That we should have to the commies to fuck off.

But letting millions of them die in a war they helped start was the next best thing!

>>33744943
>told

>>33744896
This. I was in the that company, the atgms are falling apart and are state of the art ca. 1980, and the mgs can't turn on when it's below 30 degrees.

Moreover, tanks are best killed by other tanks, or little shits in the hills with javs

>>33744962
Omfg it's you..
I'm so glad you are leaving in May.

>>33744977
Bitch i left before ntc

>>33744962
3/21?

>>33744987
5-1. An 11b in their e co.

>>33745006
It's weird knowing you probably right down the street.
You going to pathways?

File: 1490683521020.png (111KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 644x598px

>>33740699
Hitler would have steamrolled through the USSR had it not been for American supplied oil and steel and the opening of a second and third front in North Africa/Italy and western Europe. Slavaboo please leave.
Britain's only contribution to the war was crazy scientist and airfields within range of Berlin.

>>33741082
We've only had 1 civil war, lad. Tell those folks at the Kremlin to at least give you guys a US history textbook or something.

>>33745029
Nope. I'm gone. Have fun with the japanese "army"

>>33745040
What about all those ships?
Or are we going to pass off the RN as irrelevant.

>>33745063
Still have 2 years in this shit hole.
Good luck brother.

>>33745064
It was largely irrelevant outside of the Mediterranean.

>losing a carrier to a fucking battleship

File: HMS_Hood.jpg (167KB, 962x554px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 962x554px

>>33745064
Outdated, irrelevant, and dying. Britain had no where near the ship building capacity of the United States and would have had its navy slowly decimated by U-boats trying to protect trade convoys in the Atlantic. Had America not entered the war and began to pump out war and transport ships by the hundreds Britain would have been trapped on their island surrounded by steel within a few years.
Hell, their flagship was sunk by a brand new battleship with inexperienced crew and the Royal navy had to rally pretty much it's entire fucking north atlantic fleet just to get retaliation.

>>33744848

What's up man, where were you at? I was in from 2005-2011. Was in Haditha for the first dep, then Helmand Province for the second.

>>33745152
This entire post seems like an insult.
>'but anon your sensitive i'm telling the truth'

>>33745108
RN won the Med and did most of the heavy lifting in the Atlantic.

>>33745200
It's not an insult when it's true.

File: 20160126_LAUGHINGimage.jpg (295KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1920x1080px

>>33745234
>did most of the heavy lifting in the Atlantic

>>33745178
2d lar 2010-2016

Helmand in 2011

>>33745279
4thLAR. I think you might have replaced us down at COP Payne, yeah? If so, we heard you guys did an awesome raid down by the border, sounded fun.

>>33745409
Yea we flew into cop payne, then we operated out of patrol bases

File: IMG_0063.jpg (196KB, 729x455px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 729x455px

>>33740706
Given the choice I'd take a Russian tank over a Sherman in WW2.

>>33738692
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System#Firepower
they blow up buildings with it some times
but even

>>33740588
Heres the ammount of time im willing to spend watching your video

>>33747657
Given the choice you would be a fanboy.

>>33747795
And you aren't? K.

>>33745054
American revolution might count.

The number really depends on how you define major armed conflicts.

He could be right if he had obnoxious enough criteria, but they could also be 3/3 if its like that.

>>33741237
nigger you can't have low recoil without low muzzle energy the physics simply do not allow it.

>>33744212
never said it was the same gun as the l7 i said it was the centurions gun. like one year after ww2.

>>33738692
Sort of. With the 105mm gun, it won't penetrate any modern Main Battle Tank armor from the front. It will still be able to kill them from the sides and rear, of course, and do very well against IFVs and anything with less armor than a tank - meaning pretty much everything else. It will also kill older, cheaper tanks.

>>33749110
In other words you have no idea what you are talking about, as the 105mm L7 is from over a decade after WW2 and the 105mm M68A2 can fire higher pressure rounds (M900 APFSDS) that the L7 cannot.

>>33749251
nigga pressure doesn't mean shit stop spouting useless crap. only the kinetic energy is relevant to this discussion.

>>33749101
>heavier gun

Less recoil.

>more efficient recoil system

Less recoil.

Try thinging for once.

>>33749269
If you fire two identical rounds out of the same gun, except one has powder that produces higher pressure, which will have more kinetic energy?

>>33749269
>stop spouting useless carp
>from the guy who thought that the centurion originally mounted the L7

>>33749277
>more efficient recoil system
>Less recoil.
go back to school maybe. recoil is coming from the transfer of energy to the vehicle. the total energy will always be transferred. you can only play with the mass of the vehicle and the rate it is transferred at.

>>33749322
>>from the guy who thought that the centurion originally mounted the L7
where did i ever said that? seriously

>>33749110
>>33749269
this is some weak af bait bro

>>33749374
no seriously i said it's pretty much the same gun as they only differ in the breach, but never said the centurion originally mounted the l7 i said it's a ww2 era gun.

>>33749390
>still throwing out this stale bait

this is just boring

>>33749339
>and the rate it is transferred at.

Bravo, you are catching on.

>>33749347
>>33740953
>it's still a ww2 era gun it was the centurions.

>>33749390
>no seriously i said it's pretty much the same gun as they only differ in the breach

A gun chambered in .22 lr and .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer is basically the same, the only difference is the breech.

>>33749413
long recoil is not the same as low recoil this must be a severe case of abused terminology.

>>33745152
HMS Hood, you mean an outdated Battlecruiser in need of a refit. She was flagship for sentimental reasons, there were much better ships even in the Grand Fleet.

File: Piranha IIIC 90 mm gun.jpg (59KB, 854x482px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 854x482px

We are getting rid of our Leopards and replacing it with this bullshit.

For shame.

(though obviously we haven't used our Leopards in anger for decades, if ever.)

>>33749473

Whats the RHA pen on that 90mm gun?

>>33749484
irrelevant it will rekt anything short of an mbt and won't do a thing to an mbt.

>>33749347
>never said it was the same gun as the l7 i said it was the centurions gun. like one year after ww2
Please remove yourself

>>33740699
Lend-Lease Shermans were liked by Soviet crews. And british tanks, I don't know about crews, but these were liked by Soviet officials - Brits kept Valentine in production per Soviet request.

Later in war we Russians have got it right finally, yes. >>33747657

But later in war Yanks had their experience with german "big cats" too and understood that "tanks don't fight tanks" meme is bullshit as well, so they produced Pershing and so on. As well as Brits.

>>33749339
Bullshit. Do recoilles rifles transfer energy to the mount/shooter? Or do they do it for a loooong minute after the shot, very slowly? No, energy of backblast negates the energy of recoil. Muzzle brake on the conventional gun does the same thing - redirects gases, just not at the same rate as recoilless designs do.

>>33750089
>But later in war Yanks had their experience with german "big cats" too and understood that "tanks don't fight tanks" meme is bullshit as well

Ah yes the tank destroyer doctrine myth.

>>33750113
you can redirect gases but you can't do shit with the recoil from accelerating the projectile.
recoil-less guns still have recoil it just let go of with the backward ejected mass. stand behind one when it fires if you don't believe me.

>>33750462
You are on the cusp of grasping felt recoil.

>>33749447
its low recoil youre actually stupid as fuck and its entertaining watching the other anon rip you apart