why are modern IFVs so fucking huge?

>>33757211
IED

>>33757211
because they expect them to do everything and not ever get destroyed by other IFVs.

>>33757211

Because they're trying to fit everything onto it and have room for a crew.

>>33757211
The size lobby.

IFVs are beautiful at every size, shitlord. Uhhg, I can't even!

>>33757211
For you

Improved diet over their forebears. The sizes of all classes of armored vehicle, from armored car to tank, increased as food quality, production and distribution became more reliable

>>33757211
The Boxer is an AFV, not an IFV.

LAV-25 is meant more for recon than fighting, regardless of how it is used right now.

>>33757211
Because we're taller and carry waaaaay more gear than in 1970, justifying a larger troop compartment, troops being professional and expecting more quality gear and comfortable ride than conscripts that would have to put up with whatever bullshit vehicle you shove them into for a few months, in additon to armor considerations, and vehicles being themselves much more complex than a couple of generations ago, with a lot of sensors and electronic equipment demanding generators, batteries and stuff as well.

>>33757211
Because people realized that small means little to no armor, armament and generally poor weight distribution.

mission creep and MRAP

Originally it was armored reconnaissance now its got all kinds of shit to so and needs more armor

>>33757278
>AFV not IFV

Wut

>>33757433
Lav-25 with turret doesn't carry soldiers
Lav-25 apc does

I think the boxer has troop compartment along with the turret?
Making it a wheeled IFV

Also pic is from Australia, air conditioning absolutely required

File: image.jpg (48KB, 448x296px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 448x296px

If this happens to a LAV-25 off road
What's going to happen to these new generation of 8x8 LAV that are bigger and heavier?

File: image.jpg (52KB, 400x260px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x260px

Even the Bushmaster 'infantry mobility vehicle' looks bigger than a LAV

>>33757492
IFVs are glorified battle taxis with some form of fire support for infantry, but the primary purpose is to be a mechanized unit.

AFVs are armored vehicles that may or may not carry troops.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 472x312px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 472x312px

>>33757504
The soldier gives a good size comparison for the Bushmaster

>>33757505
>armored vehicle

That could mean anything
A reconnaissance or cavalry vehicle
An APC
An IFV

T H I C C

File: 2880px-Namer_in_US.jpg (1017KB, 2880x1913px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 2880x1913px

>>33757519
Fuck me. Forgot pic.

>>33757504
>>33757510
>you will never a thick Aussie sheila

>>33757278
The Boxer is an IFV. Technically its (in the Aus Army) a CRV, like the ASLAV.
And AFV is anything from an APC to MBT to SPG. Any thing that is armoured, fights, and is a vehicle.

>>33757504
MRAP

File: sardines-in-can.jpg (27KB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x222px

>>33757504
Bushies aren't too bad, they're still a bit tight with a full loadout and everyone in there.
ASLAV's are just a fucking miserable place to be really unless you're some kind of midget

Both are quite separate in their roles though

>>33757211
Wasn't the whole point of mechanising infantry with LAVs to provide them with more armor than trucks but also more mobility and faster deployment than heavy armor?
If they weigh as much as the tracked IFVs then isn't that lost?

>>33757211
Looks like some faggot with a few molotovs could melt the tires and pick off the crew as they disembark. """modern""" IFVs are shit.

>>33757433
You're a talker.
You're not wrong, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWiAxF6VAj8

>>33757525
Are the Germans using it an IFV? Don't they have a new Puma for that?
Your description of AFV means its useless as a designation

>>33757534
>melt the tires
Let us know how that goes when you get out of home schooling

>>33757211

The bigger you are, the larger you are.

>>33757537
Its a modular system, the version with a turret and transport capacity is a IFV. Special snowflake australians call it a CRV because their regular IFVs suck balls. And it would make them look bad.
>Your description of AFV means its useless as a designation
Its not a designation, just a blanket term.

>>33757549
The 5th and 7th battalion currently use modified M113s, isn't there a contract for replacing them with new IFVs along side the ASLAV replacement?

>>33757540
That's a good point you made, shill. Non tracked IFVs are fucking shit. The only thing they excel at is intimidating dumb/disarmed peasants.

>>33757563
boxer isnt a IFV

educate yourself

>>33757563
Before they got butch you could rapidly load them into your transport ships and tactical lift aircraft and get them deployed quicker than your heavy armor
And they had good off road speed, so long as the terrain was solid otherwise >>33757501

>>33757570
Its a multipurpose chassis with an IFV variant.

>>33757537
They seem to be using it as an 8x8 APC, the IFV is export
Marder/Puma is their tracked IFV

>>33757537
Maybe just google the actual definition of IFV instead of making stupid assumptions. The boxer perfectly fits the internationally accepted definition of IFV

>>33757570
>An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), or mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV), is a type of armoured fighting vehicle used to carry infantry into battle and provide direct fire support.[1] The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines an infantry fighting vehicle as "an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher."

The boxer is an IFV. Educate yourself

>>33757559
m113as4. rated to 14.7mm
replacement is phase 2 of land 400. contenders are the lynx, cv90 and something else

File: 175.jpg (43KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 720x480px

>>33757592
Hey guy look, its a IFV!

File: image.jpg (177KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x600px

Lest we forget ;_;

>>33757599
>>33757592
>>33757570
>>33757563

Holy shit, it's a fucking car, you autistic fucks

>>33757609
time to buy german again

>>33757611
The tiger is german

>>33757609
Someone needs to make an Aussie thread for once :(

>>33757599
Where is the direct first support and cannon?

>>33757530
Sure it is. But the demand now is heavy armor to prevent casualties instead of getting somewhere faster.

>>33757666

Doesn't matter. Boxers have neither on their base unit either.

>>33757492
Type 1 can carry 4 troops in back. New vehicles in tender are similar design

>>33757594
The boxer and amv35 are the contenders. Phase 3 will be a tracked variant of whatever they get for phase 2

File: k-17 vpk-7829 (8).jpg (205KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1280x853px

>>33757211
Because crew comfort, combat modules and, first and foremost, IED protection.

>>33757563
Oh look. It's the eryfing mustof be a tank to be gooder guy. Niches bitches. All equipment work best in the niches. There's a time and place for wheeled IFVs as well as tracked IFVs.

>>33757701
so if strykers roll easy how do you lot suppose this will go?

>>33757722
They don't roll that easily. They just roll more than the thicc humvee

>>33757594
>>33757686
The two Rheinmetall offerings, Boxer and Lynx, are basically guaranteed at this point. Their unveiling of the Lynx at Eurostatory basically won them both Phases.

That, and unlike Theyssen-Krupp, Rheinmetall isn't in the habit of trying to dictate "This is what we think you need, we don't care what you actually want" to it's customers, so that helped too.

>>33757666
That's the joke. >>33757599 is mocking the people calling the Boxer an IFV.

how did one of them get in australia?

>>33757796
Competition to select new armored reconnaissance lav to replace the ASLAV

>>33757211
because they don't want them to be air transportable anymore.

>>33757222
How difficult would it be to make a bigger IED?

>>33757845
To make one bigger? Not terribly hard.

To make one that's bigger *and* practical enough to be used in an ambush? Liiiiiitle bit trickier.

>>33757743
>That, and unlike Theyssen-Krupp, Rheinmetall isn't in the habit of trying to dictate "This is what we think you need, we don't care what you actually want" to it's customers

That's what happened to the JLTV program and oshkosh delivered what the DOD wanted, a light mrap with all the protection but none of the size, while being as mobile and utilitarian as the Humvee.

BAE gave them some angler FUUUUTRE meathook abortion that was no where near as armored as an mrap.

Lockheed gave them an Uparmrored suburban, that had the drivers station designed like, I shit you not, a fuckin cockpit. Long ass wheelbase and no clearance meant offloading was nil.

>>33757592
Wrong.

Its an AFV

>>33757917
>Lockheed gave them an Uparmrored suburban, that had the drivers station designed like, I shit you not, a fuckin cockpit.
Typical, any pictures?

>>33757935
No pictures. At work phoneposting. Firefox was permission to take audio if I click upload file. Nope.

http://image.trucktrend.com/f/45175152+re0+ar0+st0/1301dp_02-january_2013_military_power-lockheed_martin_jltv_a_gp_driving.jpg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_JLTV

Lockheed makes great airplanes. Always has. They should stick to that.

>>33757935
>AFV
your autism: turn it off

>>33757522
They should just equip those with 360 APS and let the roll first into towns. Remote controlled thermal .50 is enough to pose threat to infantry hiding in the buildings so they will have to return fire.

>>33759659
>Hits IED
>smoke screen
>2 PG-7VRs are simultaneously launched from the same side

File: namer_trophy_1021.jpg (132KB, 1021x580px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1021x580px

>>33759659
They tested Trophy on the Namer a few months ago. IIRC all new production Namers will be fitted with Trophy.

>>33757211
Bitches don't know about 6 wheeled IFVs.