An APC that is actually an APC

File: bae_m113.gif (132KB, 768x511px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 768x511px

or even this shit

Because the brass wanted a bradley
t. Pentagon Wars

>>34827435
so what you're saying is that a stryker or an mrap isn't an apc?

>>34827454
Do you see wheels in this thread? No, now go murder yourself.

>>34827474
>APC
>armored personal carrier

I totally see tracks in that.

File: 1491164438433.png (20KB, 154x183px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 154x183px

>>34827454
>mrap=apc
Fuck off
>be stryker
>be based off of a scout vehicle never originally designed to be apc
>get beefed up armor that still sucks
>horrible speed
>horrible range
>barely fits 9 dudes
>fookin wheelz
>be huge af so might as well bradleyify by putting big fuck off cannon/autocannon on
>only has a rcws .50
stahp

File: flat-tire-bike-asian-cyclist-headache-looking-his-isolated-white-background-43992417.jpg (144KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1300x957px

>>34827482
Wheels are for maneuvering and high speed hit and run shit. tracks allow you to actually survive prolonged engagements from shrapnel and small arms fire.

File: images(5).jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>34827482
I totally see a faggot.

File: b19.jpg (51KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x600px

>>34827519
Does that stop it from carrying personal to the battlefield? No. No it doesn't. Also, run flat tires are a thing.

>>34827587
I totally see a guy pinning his personal life on me.

File: images(7).jpg (9KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 275x183px

>>34827625
Kiss me faggot, you won't.

File: 1498178409470.png (278KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 500x376px

>>34827625
>have run flat
>expect them to last hours/multiple days under combat conditions
Fuck, even driving through rubble could fuck up your tires. Again, I like the speed wheel'd vehicles give, but for a vehicle that not only transports you towards combat, but actually into combat. I'll stay with the tracks.

>>34827485
>mrap=apc
>Fuck off
oh please, expound us with your knowledge oh great revered one.
>horrible speed
>horrible range
and tracks are better huh?
>barely fits 9 dudes
pretty much all apc's only cary 2-3 fireteams. m113's carry 11, bmp's carry 8.
>fookin wheelz
try to climb a rocky hill with tracks. see how that works for you.
>be huge af so might as well bradleyify by putting big fuck off cannon/autocannon on
you complain about armor, carrying capacit, and speed; then bitch that something's too big?
>only has a rcws .50
capable of a 40mm, 105mm, or the grandaddy 30mm bushmaster. why the fuck do you need anything else?
t. the 'tism is strong with you.

>>34827638
God damn right I won't. You'll give me cooties.

>>34827676
Cause tracks don't jam or get knocked off the wheels.

File: baitkakke.png (98KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 625x626px

>>34827676
because treads don't get blown off. this thread is such shitty bait.

File: equality.jpg (73KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 768x576px

>>34827706
>>34827710
Atleast tracks don't deflate after taking one hit from an AK fired by some punk ass kid from the third world

File: 1500963442833.jpg (40KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x500px

>>34827706
Guess ill just rape my cooties into you.

>>34827720
>what are bullet resistant tires Alex

File: DerpNedry.png (278KB, 470x471px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 470x471px

>>34827797
>resistant

Kek. Enjoy your flats.

>>34827797
I'm sorry, the apporopriate response would have been "why can't bullet PROOF tires exist?" Anon, back to you.

File: main-qimg-3774281e340e5ad07ac31c2f41f27819-c.jpg (14KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 360x360px

>>34827805
which one would you like we have self sealing

>>34827485
>based off a scout vehicle
The Mowag Piranha was designed as personal carrier as well

File: main-qimg-e9499258054eaf5ac48d69a6a3fbbae5-c.jpg (50KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 570x570px

>>34827810
cause 14.7mm will fucking rip a tire apart like it will disable a tracked vehicle
>>34827805
and we have airless

>>34827833
>cause 14.7mm will fucking rip a tire apart like it will disable a tracked vehicle
yes it would
but 7.62 fired by abdul wouldn't

>>34827833
>we have airless

Yea I bet that's a fun ride.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (109KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1920x1080px

>>34827854
there's been some improvement still looks like shit though

>>34827485
The strykers armor is great for what it is nignog.

>>34827797
"resistant" means "will take one hit, but not two".

>>34827866
resistant maybe fucking eighty hits but the eighty first will kill it

>>34827485
>>get beefed up armor that still sucks
As opposed to the m113. Known for its reliance and tough, nigh impenetrable armor.

>>34827851
run flats don't stop working either and you can pretty speedily change a tire in comparison to a track

>>34827864
Get back to me when that's actually standard issue.

>>34827871
No.

>>34827904
yes.
top tier counter argument

>>34827895
oh also my car doesn't disable itself if i turn it strangely

File: abstract_kinda_reaction.jpg (27KB, 355x354px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 355x354px

>>34827876
missing the point of the entire thread, the m113's shown were experimental up armored m113's that would've been able to get hit by a metric fuckton of enemy ordnance before being decommissioned. While the Strykers armor is only capable of taking "a couple" of hits from 14.5 for its frontal armor. The all around armor is only rated for 7.62. while the fancy m113's could've been able to shrug off DShK rounds for all around protection. Fuck, atleast the LAV the stryker is based off of is still amphibious

>>34827919
Provide evidence to support your autism. You can't. Top tier counter argument.

>>34827933
maybe some time in the future but currently the US uses self sealant thick rubber and run flats. It's literally just something being bullet resistant

>>34827930
>the m113's shown were experimental up armored m113's that would've been able to get hit by a metric fuckton of enemy ordnance before being decommissioned.
I too enjoy making up stories on the internet.

File: step aside everyone i take large steps hurr durr.gif (978KB, 220x190px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 220x190px

>>34827435
Think, you retard. Because APCs aren't supposed to get shot at, they're just supposed to battle taxi and then GTFO. So why would you need armor?

An APC is by definition underarmored and underarmed for the battlefield job, because if it isn't, it's starting to inch into the role of the IFV. But after a while, military planners realized that if you're not actually going to see combat in the APC by doctrine, why do you even need it to have tracks to go hardcore offroad? You're just gonna drive along the roads anyway. Just give it wheels for transporting fags in the cold zones and leave transport in the hot zones to IFVs with the guns and armor to do so successfully. Thus you have the current split between Bradleys on one side and Strykers and MRAPs on the other.

Stuck somewhere in the middle is the LAV-25.

>>34828194
>So why would you need armor?
A R M O R E D
R
M
O
R
E
D
PERSONNEL
CARRIER

>An APC is by definition underarmored and underarmed for the battlefield
So adopt one that has proper armor dumbass.

>>34828245
Try reading the rest of the post you mong, the APC is an outdated concept born out of M7 Priest artillery pieces in the second world war. Every competent army has switched to IFVs for the battle support role by now, and isn't looking back. Unlike you, you nostaliafag retard.

>So adopt one that has proper armor dumbass.

They're called IFVs, and the USA has plenty of them to equip units where their transports are expected to persist on the battlefield.

APCs are used in other situations, because they are far cheaper to buy & use, and have far lower logistical requirements. If you massively increase the weight of an APC with extra protection, you just make it worse at its designated role. Now that mortar platoon is slower in keeping up with other vehicles, more likely to break-down or get stuck (due to overloaded vehicles), needs more fuel to travel the same distance, and costs the army more of its equipment budget.

>>34827724
But you'll activate my trap card, which will activate an additional trap card.

>>34827720
No, they take an IED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTpIf874o9U
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker

>>34827435
What you mean it isn't adopted. It's been used since the 1960s.

>>34828265
>original APCs aren't armored enough
>so lets use these vehicles that have paper thin armor so that they can play pretend tank with a big gun
Ooooooor we could use that extra weight taken off from removing the main guns and launchers of modern IFVs and use that almost purely for extra protection; seeing as the total protection of its occupants is the primary goal of an Armored PERSONNEL CARRIER.

If destroying vehicles is what you need then send in a purpose-built vehicle destroyer, not something that crams in additional squishy bodies who won't have a good reason to get out anyway. When it comes to engaging softer targets an MG mounted on a pintle or a small turret is more than sufficient and doesn't take up much space or weight, so that's what an APC should have.

What happened to good old combined arms and things being made to be good at one thing instead of mediocre at all the things?

File: puma ifv side anfle.jpg (221KB, 1200x640px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1200x640px

>>34828760
>paper thin armor so that they can play pretend tank with a big gun
>paper thin armor
APCs are from 1944. IFVs are today.

>>34828760
You need a lot of extra protection to save you from an ATGM, to the point where you need a stronger chassis, which calls for a heavier engine, which then leads to greater ground pressure, etc. until you're dealing with something more like a tank in terms of logistical footprint and mobility. At that point you could just build an MBT, and instead save resources by having infantry ride to battle in wheeled vehicles and then dismount to fight on foot, since vehicles are hard to conceal.

It's conceptually possible but most armies have chosen an IFV/MBT doctrine for these reasons.

>>34828800
A tank without a turret and just a big hull for people to sit in sounds good to me. No large gun and turret means the existing engine should be able to push the chassis around at somewhat higher speeds without over straining the various parts.

Jesus christ this thread
Cold war APCs are resistant to small arms and fragmentation because that was what they would've been expected to face, they ferry infantry around who then dismount for battle, they are a massive improvement over moving troops by unarmoured trucks and going unmotorised is obviously not an option in a cold war battlefield. As with pretty much all cold war equipment, they were made affordable.

Now, in the modern COIN environment, what people seem to want is a heavy-MBT with troop carrying capacity being able to take a konkurs head on, which is massively different from what the APCs used to be.

>>34828763
sexy as fuck

>>34827930
>Fuck, atleast the LAV the stryker is based off of is still amphibious
Barely
T. LAV mech

>>34828829
It would end up being significantly larger than a tank. Tanks don't have a ton of internal volume. Even if you ripped out the turret of an abrams, ammo storage, fire control equipment, etc you'd be able to fit maybe 2 extra people.

We used to use an old M113 for our front gate ECP in Iraq. You can't fit in them comfortably with modern vests/gear on, especially not the drivers hatch. They're cozy, but a bit too small for this era

File: IMG_9977.gif (2MB, 489x449px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 489x449px

>>34830209
I bet your cozy when someone tries to get snug into you too

File: M44 APC.jpg (287KB, 1280x997px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1280x997px

We need to go bigger...

>>34827482
Not very useful if it can't keep up with the tanks. The STryker and MRAP are not full war machines, they're built for intervention and insurgency environments.

>>34830135
It works for the Merkava.
Show your working.

>>34830950

Why wasn't this thing more popular? It looks fucking amazing.

>>34831003
>big slow metal brick
>no defensive weapons

>>34830975
The MRAP you have a point with. Stryker definitely was not designed for insurgency.

>>34831003
Because if a shell penetrates and explodes your soldiers gets turned into mince.

File: Trophy_on_NAMER_APC.jpg (968KB, 3832x2659px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 3832x2659px

>>34827435
By your definition, here's the current APC apex.
Well, except for the being cheap part.

>>34827435
METAL BAWKSES

File: 1341674045263.jpg (53KB, 410x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 410x640px

I'll just leave this here...

>>34831069
>intervention

>>34831444
This image belongs in humor threads where it's relevant and nobody cares that it's a stupid image.

>>34827699
Fuck him good

>>34831444
Pick up your trash

>>34827833
Protip those get filled with mud, sand, and loose rocks and lose all ride quality.

>>34828829
See:
Achzarit
Namer
HAPC in general

>>34831042

Put a RWS on it.

>>34831129

Isn't that true of any APC?

File: 11.jpg (73KB, 640x398px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x398px

>>34831187
Reminder that the IDF has also seen the IFV light in TYOOL 2000+10+7
>pic: unmanned external turret developed by RAPAT
>400 rounds 30x173mm
>700 rounds coax 7.62
>60mm mortar
>Missile launcher capability
>Trophy fitted standard

>>34831187

> 2 guns

>>34827435

> 1 gun

>>34827440

> no guns

File: Ewiqh.jpg (148KB, 989x690px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 989x690px

>>34832243
Another pic because this is fucking beautiful

>>34831444
Oh look, another outdated image that doesn't understand the development of technology. Created by someone who doesn't know understand that either, as well as posted by someone who doesn't know their ass from their elbow. What a surprise.

>>34832229
>Isn't that true of any APC?
Yes, the problem was that the m44 was fuckhueg so highly likely to get hit, and had a lot of people inside so losses per hit would be high. Smaller less vulnerable vehicles were considered a better solution.

>>34827895
They're more or less, besides, the tires can take explosion from fuckin mines, no less an AK.

You are genuinely retarded.

File: coyote.jpg (71KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x400px

Or you can go the no protection route but at least see who's shooting at you

>>34832524
Or you could just not be poor and see who's shooting from the safety of an armored vehicle.
http://elbitsystems.com/media/IronVision.pdf

>>34832293
>They're more or less

No they arent. The only retard here is you. Go to any motorpool. Rubber, rubber tires everywhere.

>>34827930
Except not because the aluminium hull still means it'll burn to slag from the first RPG hit.

Israel tried for 30 years to up-armor the M113 into having some kind of survivability agaisnt light AT weapons. It never worked.

>>34831002
The Merkava is also shit.

>>34832611
>Israel tried for 30 years to up-armor the M113 into having some kind of survivability agaisnt light AT weapons. It never worked.
This tbqh.
The 113's drivetrain and suspension can't survive the load of a good armor kit, the base armor is extremely vulnerable, and the things are beat to shit. And ecen if it could you haven't improved mine survivability. The cost of fixing all this is shuch that it justifies buying a replacement which solves all these issues from the grould up.

>>34832628
Proofs?
>anecdotal burnt out vehicles aren't proof

File: Namer-40mm_3.jpg (128KB, 854x466px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 854x466px

>>34832264
Namer wins again.
>>34832243
And again.

>>34832243
thing looks sexy

File: Namer_in_US.jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

Why the fuck didn't we just buy the Namer and put a 40mm Bushmaster on it? Enough of this light and mobile bullshit. We could've had the XM2001 Crusader, M1 Block III, and a Bradley replacement.

>>34832761
Your pic was an experimental one from a few years back, they also tried RAFAEL's Samson turret at the time. The one in testing now is a RAPAT in-house design.

>>34832264
> no guns
So like you?

>>34832848
So basically a CV90?

>>34832880
the CV90 was a good option too, it was included in the GCV trials.

>>34832880
But twice as heavy.

File: Eitan_APC.jpg (153KB, 1199x797px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1199x797px

>>34832848
>>34832761

Israel makes these incredibly heavy APCs because it is tiny enough for logistical issues to not be a problem, and has a severe problem with angry suicidal sand-people given rockets and ATGMs by vindictive wealthy sand-people shooting over its borders.

Also, Israel is buying a 30-35t weight-class 8x8 APC, see pic related, because the Namer is too expensive and heavy to use as a one for one M113 replacement.

>>34832896
>>34832897
40mm Bofors stronk

>>34832917
From Israeli sources, the thing's supposed to have an APS installed (probably Trophy) and be RPG resistant. Chances are it's going to be the 1st Kornet-resistant wheeled APC.

>>34832959

I am going to be highly doubtful that a ~35t vehicle which can carry more than ten men, a remote weapon station, an APS, and a mine resistant underside has enough protection to resist an ATGM which is a threat to the front of ~65t MBTs

>>34827435
Mike Sparks pls go

>>34833061
>has enough protection to resist an ATGM which is a threat to the front of ~65t MBTs
That's what the APS would be there for. Trophy has proven itself highly capable of shooting down Kornets, and an APC matching your description would be capable of keeping the wreckage out.

>>34827435
The reasons for the Gavin being cast aside are known only to the anti-Gavin lobby in Washington, but let's be honest, it was a money thing pure and Gavin.

The Gavin did the job, and did the job Gavin. The upgrades that could have been applied to the Gavin were low-cost and effective, and could have seen the Gavin operating into the middle of the 21st Gavin.

>>34827699

bmp is ifv

btr is apc

>>34827435
>Cheap
You get what you pay for, Cheaper isnt always better.
>Up Armored
the M113 is made of tissue paper, hope you never had to ride in one.
>Capacity
More people to die when that tissue paper gets full of holes
>Speed
Doesnt matter when you have to match your escorts speed or are limited by terrain.
>survival.
Have you ever actually been in an M113?

File: Space_Marine_Rhino.jpg (129KB, 798x528px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 798x528px

>not adopting future M113

>>34827435
Could they have put an upgunned weapons station 40mm 50cal turret on that?

File: Razorback09.jpg (176KB, 1600x1250px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1600x1250px

>>34834204
Yes.

>>34830950
Holy shit, that thing's way bigger than I thought it was.

Speaking of fuckhuge infantry-carrying AFVs

>>34832848
>Enough of this light and mobile bullshit.
Sure, just as soon as all the wars we fight are in Mexico or Canada instead of on the other side of the fucking planet.

File: M113.jpg (1MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x2000px

>>34833401
If you're getting shot at by any considerable volume of fire in an APC, you're doing it wrong. Don't blame the vehicle's design for the shortcomings of commanders. Asking an M113 to do the job of an IFV is like asking an M1128 to do the job of an Abrams.

>>34834377
are those claymores?

File: M113A3 BMP-2.jpg (255KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1024x681px

>>34834397
Those are claymores

Also, I take it back; the M113 can be an IFV, but only in California

>>34834404
>Those are claymores
in the essence of pure ignorance, why?

File: M113 FSV.jpg (121KB, 800x589px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x589px

>>34834414
You're in an APC operating in urban environments; at best your only form of self-defense is a manned machine gun on top of the vehicle. If shit hits the fan and baddies are close, you don't want to be anywhere near that machine gun. Of course, if this has happened you've already fucked up pretty badly, but still; it's nice to have some peace of mind when it all goes down.

Also I take it back; M113 can be whatever the fuck it wants to be.

>>34832880

Yes, except without the antiquated gun.

>>34834240
For the Emperor!
But I see that they had a reason to put one on a wheeled vehicle, the M11111111117, so why not?

>>34834397
>>34834404

that is FUCKED

>>34832917
>>34832959
>>34833061
>>34833111

Given the sort of threats it's facing, it should honestly be just as tough as the Namer against Hamas and Hezbollah, as long as all of them are equipped with Trophy. The only threat it's less equipped to handle are IEDs, and even there it's worse than the Namer but still pretty good.

>>34832917
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagmachon

>>34828763
unfff

File: nagmachon.jpg (126KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x400px

>>34834484
I love the damn thing, partly because it's got such an iconic look, and partly because it's really cool to see a freaking Centurion still in action

File: M-WAT13.jpg (874KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

874KB, 2048x1536px

Y'all niggas ain't shit.

>>34827435
Replace the aluminum with steel, and add a 20mm.

>what is an ifv

>>34834631
I don't understand what this is.

>>34834706
You're looking at the ass, if that helps.

>>34834435
You could totally use that one in sensha-do.

>>34834706
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_turret

>>34834475
>The only threat it's less equipped to handle are IED
And tank-fired KE.

>>34837638
Not really a problem from Hamas or Hezbollah (they have tanks but they're not dumb enough to use them against Israel).

>>34837681
True, but the IDF needs deterrence against the state-sized threats around, including Egypt, whatever will become of Syria, and Jordan. The Namer isn't a 100% equivalent to the Namer, even with Trophy. The Namer can take bigger hits, and once trophy is depleted its reactive/passive armor is significantly more resistant than the Eitan.
The Eitan is good, but it's to complement the Namer and not in any way replace it.

>>34834475

It has higher ground clearance and V-shaped hull. It is probably better at dealing with explosions under the hull, so it is better against conventional IED's. Explosive formed penetrators, in IED's or mines, and kinetic energy tank shells are probably only things it has substantially worse protection against.

>>34834453
There a few versions of the cv90

>>34832848
Always loved how this photo best demonstrates the sheer scale of this thing.

>>34834706
HS.30