The Czech army wants to replace their BMP-2s with 210 IFVs.

File: ASCOD Samson Mk II.jpg (418KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 1280x853px

Wonder how the hull and what's inside differs from the Ajax.

File: Lynx.jpg (194KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1000x667px

Lynx. Comes in two versions KF31 and KF41, the 41 being bigger for carrying more dismounts.

Sex on tracks

File: puma.jpg (645KB, 2052x1439px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 2052x1439px

Just a beast.

>>35038032
Well, Bae Systems really is proving themselves as the one stop shop for everything modern military. I have no reason to doubt it's quality and innovation for the Czechs. It is certainly an upgrade from barely armored slavshit.

Bang up write up here.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com.au/2017/

>>35038048
Upgraded Marder, isn't it?

>>35038121
No, the Lynx basically is the better version of the puma produced for selling it to other countries.
The Puma has it's issues and the Lynx basically is already past it's toothing problems.

The marder is completely different and very very old.

>>35038032
I bet my left testicle on that we'll get ASCODs
>General Dynamics lobby
>there is GD affiliated manufacturer already in Czech Republic
>Sampson turret is already installed on Pandurs
>Czech Army is (rightfully) Israeliboos
>Pumas are "too expensive"
>ASCOD is used by neighboring Austria
>CV90 is "only" used by Scandinavians countries
>nobody uses Lynx
>>35038121
from what I understand Lynx is basically budget Puma

>>35038060
BAE merly owns other companies.

The CV90 for example is still made by Bofors/Hägglunds.

>>35038181
CV 90s is used by the Dutch and Estonians too.

>>35038121
No.

>>35038151
No, the Lynx is a lower cost and more flexible design Rheinmetall put out on its own for export.

File: Strf-904056-ATGM-System.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

>>35038209
And mountain kikes as well.

>>35038209
irrelevant to politicians who decide
army wants Pumas, but that doesn't mean they will get them

>>35038032
Anything short of a school bus is better than a BMP-2, those things are suicide boxes.
Both the Puma and Lynx seem to be very well regarded

>>35038032
>>35038042
>>35038048
What are these tracks? They don't look like they use any links at all. What happens if your track gets blown off and you can't replace links?

This seems stupid

>>35038278
good question
I suspect they are peace-time tracks that don't damage roads
rubber pads exist>>35038253, but I suppose they still aren't perfect solution(?)

Are ATGMs necessary for IFVs?

>>35038278
Rubber tracks are getting more and more common, as they reduce vibrations (less shit breaks, less overall maintanence), reduce weight by 1 - 2 tonnes and gives good mobility in terrain.

Some are single unit, and some are made from 5 - 10 individual parts.

>>35038310
See
>>35038637

>>35038603
Depends on who you are fighting.

>>35038278
>What are these tracks?

Rubber tracks.

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

>This seems stupid

Less vibration. Less noise. Less fuel consumption, this isn't about being hippie, it means less logistical foot print. Less wear and tear for both roads, motive components of the vehicle, ammunition and electronics. Less maintenance. Better control of vehicle. Modern synthetic rubbers are pretty tolerant of abuse. There are temporary repair kits that will add links to the track if necessary to link in temporary repairs until entire track can be replaced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oKoa8tiCMs

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

>>35038732
Awsome.

MBTs with rubber tracks when?

>>35038809
>MBTs with rubber tracks when?

Dunno. MBTs have quite a lot more weight, horsepower and torque. Load on track is more than bit higher.

File: Lynx KF 31.jpg (290KB, 3543x2225px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 3543x2225px

Nice.

>>35038732
>lighter than traditional tracks
>just as much traction
>cheaper

Why hasn't the US army adopted these yet?

>>35038900
The tracks here can take 35 T vehicles, isnt Russian tanks something like 40 - 45 tonnes?

But yeah, the engines are substantially stronger I imagine.

>>35039056
They dont make as much noise, and you cant reduce the sound of freedom.

>>35039056
>Why hasn't the US army adopted these yet?
The US has tested them. But they would only go on the M113 of M577. They are also being phased out.

We weighed our Brads combat loaded with the cage armor etc, and I swear it was close to 40 tons or over. That was like 14 years ago so I might not remember correctly. I was pretty shocked at how heavy it was at the time.

>>35039159
Shit...

40 tonnes is really quite a bit for something only sporting a 25mm, some ATGMs and 6 dismounts.

>>35038032
strykers

>>35039186
>Explicitly state that you want a tracked IFV
>Buy a wheeled APC

No anon, thats not how this works. Thats not how any of this works.

>>35039159
The US isn't seriously interested in tracked AFVs or band tracks. Band tracks (Soucy or Diehl) work well and can be had with a linked joint for fast replacement, but wheeled vehicles like Stryker make all tracked AFV obsolete. Band tracks increase XC performance but our vehicles already outrun their wheeled truck logistics so all that would do is outrun them quicker.

Soucy will do custom tracks if you have the money. A group I informally worked with looked into it.

Puma has been proposed but the US will never field AFVs not made here or produce a foreign design. Puma modularity is brilliant and if the EU had any sense it would field the same vehicles for economies of scale, but that won't happen.

>What happens if your track gets blown off and you can't replace links?

You can only short-track a few vehicles, but band tracks aren't bad to replace and with a link added you can swap out whole tracks conventionally. The M4 half-track is an early band track success and we've come a long way since WWII.

Tanktards think you need an ideal vehicle but that's never true. Good enough is good enough.

I attended a US Army meeting on AFV development and at the time (two years ago) the greatest interest was weight reduction for airlift, but interest changes with leadership. Everything must be heavy enough to defeat IEDs so mobility is a lesser consideration.

File: Capture.png (55KB, 171x166px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 171x166px

>>35039184
It's a troop carrier that can't carry troops, a recon vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconaissance, and a quasi-tank with less armour than a snowblower, but enough ammo to take out half of DC.

>>35039274
>wheeled vehicles like Stryker make all tracked AFV obsolete
Inherrently wrong. They are faster on solid terrain, and outruns logistics faster for that reson, but worse in XC (such as snow) and reduce the movement of formations in bad terrain.

The US has never intended to go to fully wheeled, and all Strykers are in separate brigades, where they can use their high mobility on good terrain to the maximum advantage.


>Puma modularity is brilliant and if the EU had any sense it would field the same vehicles for economies of scale, but that won't happen.

EU isnt a military federation. Its more liekly NATO would go with something like that.

>>35038032
probably gonna wait for the zetor shit, army wants domestic production above quality

>>35039056

Basically too new tech and not really proven as Pfc/Spc/LCpl I_don't_give_fuck_my_worst_mistake_was_enlisting-proof. Until a decade or so ago only with rubber tracked vehicles that had been widely used were well bellow 15tons articulated all terrain vehicles. Rubber tracks have been tested on last few years on by actual professionals on test tracks, in situations where driver vehicle is staff sergeant that hasn't completely lost his faith on the system or captain that is too nerdy to run company. People more professional than average grunt. In addition Bradley might be becoming even heavier, or alternatively they will strip off all post production armor and replace it with add on armor that have been actually thought out as unified package instead of just slapping on another layer on previous add on armor layer.

>>35039274
>Stryker make all tracked AFV obsolete

Nope. Wheel is faster to move on road, but off road and in heavy combat.. nope.

>Puma modularity is brilliant and if the EU had any sense it would field the same vehicles for economies of scale, but that won't happen.

For countries other than France and Germany it would literally mean destroy all your industry in favor making reasonable deal with Germans and deal where you pay French 20% bonus for destroying your own industry. Not going to happen as long as any nation has any backbone. 90% of time Brits and US can offer better product at better local production deal. French will always lie and Germans have completed zero successful military projects that haven't been laid out by WWII veterans. Every German soldier with real life experience and common sense retired in 70's, Leo 2 was in full swing by then. Everything since then has been utter clusterfuck.

French and German aren't simply reliable partners. They are willing to sell out their """"allies"""" for bit of cheaper gas from Russia or chance sell products of their failing ship building industry to Russia.

>>35038809
Get a sub 40 ton MBT, because band tracks have a weight limit.

>>35041036

MORE RUBBER

>>35038151
why lie?

>>35041628
Name a band track that can support a modern MBT.

>>35040617
>what are MEKO ships, what are type 214 subs, what is PzH-2000, what is Fennek, what is Dingo, what is Iris-T? etc etc etc
you're full of shit

>>35040617
>Except the US, of course.

>>35038032
Can they be sure that the Krauts will deliver and not cave to external pressure about sales?

>>35038205

And if you want to buy them, you call BAE.

Which is what he meant. You want to buy something, you can call BAE and they will have a product for just about anything these days.

>>35038032
CV90 is looks good for combat hot zones, but so does Lynx and Puma. ASCOD feels more recon than the others, but it's armor isn't up to par with the rest. All of them seem relatively versatile and have optional load outs, though the Puma and Lynx seems to have it more so in that aspect.

Both BAE and Rheinmetall are well respected reliable companies. Ultimately this is up to preference for the Czechs.

>>35043253
There's been very little information relased about the Lynx though. I haven't seen any different load outs or variants.
And only recently has the German Government asked for prototypes of Puma variants to be designed.

I don't know where to ask, but can anyone please tell me what is wrong with the Warrior IFV that it never got sold to any other country? Was there something very wrong with it or did the Bongs just decide that it wont be up for sale?

>>35043253

> but it's armor isn't up to par with the rest

Quite the opposite. Its armor on the newer varients is very very good. The thing weighs over 40 tonnes when its fully armored now.

If anything, its the CV90 is the one "behind" in the armor department. However I use the quotations there because, well, it's a western tracked IFV. So saying its "behind" isn't exactly saying much. All western tracked AFVs are pretty well armored at this point anyway. Just Puma and the newest versions of ASCOD/Ajax are VERY well armored.

>>35038032
Why do the Czech even need an army?

File: Warrior Mk44 Bushmaster Prototype.jpg (253KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 800x600px

>>35043749

But it did sell to another country. Kuwait bought over 250 of them in the Desert Warrior variant. Which was essentially a Warrior hull with a LAV turret.

There was nothing so much wrong with it as a platform. You could put stabilised 25mm and 30mm Bushmasters on it if you wanted, so it wasn't the RARDEN that dissuaded people, and its a reliable, tough vehicle.

A lot of IFVs never saw a lot of export. Even Bradley and Marder only saw a handful over long periods. Getting a solid 250 vehicle contract was actually quite decent by how often such platforms were selling back then when they were the 'new things'.

>>35038032
Which is better, the manned or unmanned turret?

>>35044435
I want to fuck that Puma

>>35044665
So that we don't invade them again.

>>35046095
Manned turrets are always better because the commander can look out of it.

still hoping for more rcws mgs. more eyes = more effective

>>35046095

Manned turrets have better vision of the immediate surrounding area.

Unmanned turrets are better protected and use less space inside the vehicle.

Either is workable depending on preference, but unmanned is making a big rise in popularity.

IFV is a hilariously flawed concept the way it is implemented today in the West.

Fully enclosed APCs and IFVs were developed during Cold War to give infantry NBC protection when they are moving through battlefield terrain after weapons of mass destruction were unleashed, and be able to fight from within.

That is literally what pushed BMP development and withdrawal of open-topped APCs.


Nowadays, you get 30 ton tracked vehicles that cost as an MBT which carry half a squad, present a larger target than MBT, and in some cases carry a punch rivaling that of an MBT, while having absolutely nowhere near the level of protection needed to fight at the front.


And all it takes for this to be proven is one actual mechanized/modern war.
BMP concept was already shot down, and these vehicles are essentially souped-up BMPs on steroids.

>>35039184
You can compare that to our newest Cv90's, with a 30mm, 8 dismounts w/Javelins, 1 coax and one RWS 50cal/40mm. All of this comes in at 35 tonnes, but then agian, without any of the cage-armor and shit

>>35047273
Boom.

You just lost 35 tonnes of gun, missile, machinegun, fuel and expensive tin foil to a either a single IED, RPG, ATGM, artillery, tank round or higher caliber automatic weapon ambushing you from a flank.

>>35043749

It just isn't exceptional in capability or price in a crowded market segment. It's perfectly fine, and the new CT40 turret will keep it competitive for years to come.

>>35047300
It's ok. The mine crew/rpg team/atgm team was killed by another IFV on the flank.

>>35047329
How many expensive and complex IFVs do individual countries posses, and how quickly and easily could they replace or repair the losses?


Welcome to industrial wars and army logistics.

File: i656390.jpg (53KB, 700x378px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 700x378px

>>35039303

>>35047352
Welcome to war economies. Where whatever is needed is produced.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I also agree that quantity beats quality

>>35047300
*recons the area*
*doesnt get flanked*

your move kid...

>>35044665
>need

>>35047371
Production capacity for modern tanks, IFVs and fighters is non-existent in most countries.

And those that do have production lines, can't expand the production rapidly, because those are not easy-to-make-by-unskilled-workers items.

If you rely on imported equipment, you are going to have a bad time.


I am not discussing USA, or Germany, France here. I am discussing the validity of purchasing a smaller number of expensive, complex equipment by countries who can't afford to lose them, and if they are bought to be used, there is a risk, significant one, of losing them.

>>35047377
>kid
>if I recon the area, I don't get ambushed
>I'll send my drones, spy sattelites, airplanes and stealth infantry to have absolute LOS and perfect vision of surroundings
>RTS taught me well

Write down lostarmour.info. Observe the horror. Not an exact and perfect analogy, but completely relevant.

>>35047371
Also, the quality argument is vague here as well.

If you observe the doctrines and guidelines for use of IFVs since BMP-1 appeared up to modern times accross different armies, you will see that there is no clear idea what is the correct and most useful way of employing them.


Having a bigger automatic gun, more machineguns and grenade launchers, and a one or two protection levels higher armour scheme doesn't equate to a superior IFV design by itself, if the end result is a 35-40 ton 2.5 - 3 m tall expensive toy that attracts all incoming fire, which you have low hundreds in your inventory.

A splinter and machinegun resistant battlefield taxi to deploy an infantry squad, possessing self-defence or suppressive weaponry, with a low silhouette and half the weight might have been a better idea.

>>35047414
Ah you're right. They are too expensive. Better not buy ANY of them in ANY quantity.
Tanks are expensive too, guess we don't need them.
Ships too, look at all that stuff on a ship, if it get hit it gone.
Planes are expensive too, guess we shouldn't have any either.

File: 1468206155964.png (469KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 800x450px

>>35047431
Tanks, IFVs, APCs all serve different roles.

You won't always have a tank to help you but you might have an IFV.
APC/CRVs can ferry troops into combat and also take part in it

>>35038032
If they don't pick the ASCODs, they are idiots. The rest are shit.

ASCODs will have years of tech increases thanks to the Ajax and there's always the option of just going Ajax mode on them anyway with a bigger engine.

CV90s are already too old. They are alright but they aren't remotely modern now.

Pumas and Lynx have both failed multiple contracts when compared to the CV90 and both flopped with Britain against the Ajax.

Plus General Dynamics already has a manufacturer in Czechlandia. That's the single biggest factor in these deals and why Britain canceled the Boxer and told the German companies to smoke a dick compared to the ASCOD because they demanded 75% production on all lines of vehicles, which is fine for somewhere like Poland but when you have a manufacturer base, why send the money abroad for something you can build at home?

>>35047419
Lostarmor is only proving his point.

>>35039274
the puma is really good, but too expensive. the cv90 is something like half the price, while also being easier and cheaper to maintain.

>>35038253
would look nice if they didn't have the gay cone on the barrel

>>35038032
CV90 is so nice

>>35047267
Mike Sparks, just fuck off for good.

>Nowadays, you get 30 ton tracked vehicles that cost as an MBT which carry half a squad, present a larger target than MBT, and in some cases carry a punch rivaling that of an MBT, while having absolutely nowhere near the level of protection needed to fight at the front.

Most of the western ones are as close to the armour level of MBTs in the front,


And all it takes for this to be proven is one actual mechanized/modern war.
There have been tons of mechanized wars, all of them prooving the usability of IFVs.

After all the Bradley fucked more T-72s then the Abrahams did in Desert Storm.

BMP concept was already shot down, and these vehicles are essentially souped-up BMPs on steroids.
New BMP variants is shat out all the time, so not even this is correct.

>>35047352

You would loose one hell of a lot more infantry with AT-weapons then you would loose mechanized units.

File: ukraine-se-nang-cap-xe-chien-dau-bmp-2-cho-nuoc-chau-a-hinh-8.jpg (81KB, 760x500px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 760x500px

>>35038032
There's also the local option, which is an upgraded BMP-2 with the Sampson turret

File: 1504310658271.jpg (328KB, 1080x1527px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1080x1527px

The only upgrade from a bmp-2 is a bmp-3

>>35043176
So sexy and so useless.

>>35051962
Why tho? It provides firepower in heavy terrain (primarly snow) and in places MBTs cant reach, while having similar armor levels as some older MBTs and great overall mobility. If used in combination with the other CV90 variants (as intended) you get the logistical benefit of not needing a separate supply chain for your "tank" too. And logistics wins wars.

File: 1298057501361.jpg (1MB, 2265x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2265x1500px

>>35052723
Exactly, if you need some armour in a situation, but can't withdraw tanks from a high risk area, an IFV can do the job just fine.

That sort of mobile firepower is really useful.

>>35052723
>>35052879

That particular vehicle won't get into hard terrain better than tank (power ratio, smaller, greater pressure per square inch), is much easier to destroy, so it wont't replace a tank, if mobile gun is needed, only wheeled vehicles can do this job, and in lower intensity combat also apc's with gun are more cost-effective.

File: 1220029747665.jpg (575KB, 2549x1394px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 2549x1394px

>>35052944
I know it won't get in to terrain that a tank cant. (the other poster said that). And it is much weaker, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Same goes for IFVs. They are worthwhile simply because no country would ever only have a solely tank-based army. IFVs will always have a place as being cheaper, highly armed and armoured, and can carry infantry.

The Bradley even achieved more armour kills than the Abrams in Desert Storm.

File: GCV 01.jpg (802KB, 3246x2500px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 3246x2500px

Hey guys, remember me?

File: AMPV.jpg (521KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 2048x1363px

>>35054126
Wasn't that superseded by the AMPV?

>>35054217
Ampvee is an M113 replacement, not a Bradley replacement.

>>35054217
No, the GCV was a Bradley replacement.

The AMPV is a M113 replacement.

>>35052944
Yes it wil, have you ever seen a CV90 (even the heavy up armored ones) compared to a Leopard in snow...?

>>35038809
an abrams has twice the ground pressure of a cv90, so probably not for a while

>>35044665
Because poland is getting retarded again.

>>35051962
Not really. It was intended to fill a hole in swedish mechanized forces' where you wouldn't need to attach armoured units to an otherwise mechanized unit. 6 CV9040s and two CV90120s instead of 6 CV9040s and 2 leopards basically.

File: VN-17.jpg (2MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2400px

The age of ideology is over, and nations should purchase not according to destabilising alliances.

Rather than purchase inflated prices of vehicles belonging to so called allied nations the Czech people should in fact pursue more suitable vehicles at better prices with no strings attached.

Should buy Chinese instead.

This post is sarcasm, fuck Chicoms.

>>35056426
The CV90 has a 7-8 psi ground pressure?

>>35057570

The CV9040C (up armoured one) has a ground pressure of 0,66 kg/cm2 wich equals 9,2 PSI.

The standard CV9040 has a ground pressure of 0,52 kg/cm2 wich is 7,3 PSI.

Data collected from the CV90 Photo guide by the Swedish Armour Historical Society.

>>35052944
>>35053037

See
>>35058012

That ground pressure is significantly less then that of a Leopard 2A4 (wich has about 12 PSI), and the CV90120 weighs about as much as a CV9040C, and should therefor have a similar ground pressure.

>>35056529
Spotted the Russian

File: älli.jpg (107KB, 896x596px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 896x596px

>>35047431
>A splinter and machinegun resistant battlefield taxi to deploy an infantry squad, possessing self-defence or suppressive weaponry, with a low silhouette and half the weight might have been a better idea.
You mean the glorious mt-lb?

>>35058539
The MT-LB is truly a god. Could take moderate hills while on idle.

The steel was so tough that we couldnt even drill in it to mount the antennas

File: 12353453.jpg (34KB, 530x406px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 530x406px

>>35050906
>Most of the western ones are as close to the armour level of MBTs in the front
Nope. At distance of penetration between 30mm AP and 120mm APFSDS is literally 10 times.

>>35058781
Not sure what you are saying or where you got the shitty ass pic from. But I was talking about new stuff like the Lynx, CV90, Puma etc, not a 40 year old Bradley.

>>35038032
Russian ARMADA.

>>35038032
All of them are disgustingly expensive... Maybe the CV90 with a 30mm. I'd personally go for a wheeled IFV for a country with a relatively low defence budget

>>35038053
Didn't it used to have a shitton of problems a couple of years ago?

>>35038603
It helps for self-defence, anon. Especially if you use a 20-25mm cannon that struggles a bit with penetration past 1/2 km .

>>35044687
That turret really makes my boipucci wet

>>35059832
Wheeled ones isnt cheaper tho

>>35059056
None of those have significantly different frontal protection than an A3 Bradley.

>>35059983
They are cheaper to maintain and tend to have longer range, especially on roads