Why are not more armys using Wiesel like tankettes? >20mm

Because the US military isnt fucking poor and doesnt drive metal cuck boxes

they've never been used in a fight so benefits and drawbacks have never been measured

>>35075854
Just think about it:
>Wiesel fires MILAN on Abrams
>Abrams ist destroyed
or
>Abrams shoots down Wiesel
>2nd Wiesel shoots down Abrams

Wiesel wins all the time.

>>35075876
>this is what germans actually believe

>>35075843
Abrams hits an IED, it gets taken out of action until the hull is checked and repairs are made. You might lose a crew member, you might get some injuries.

Wiesel gets hit by an IED (which a lot are remote, and not pressure plates.) And gets taken out, and you lose 2 crew. Plus whatever else the Wiesel is carrying.

Wiesels fall under a different doctrine.

>>35075876
>Wiesel rolls down the street
14.5x114mm Anti-material rifle puts hole straight through the thing
>Second Wiesel appears
Apply more 14.5mm wash rinse repeat

It's armor is for 5.56 and 7.62 so while it could destroy heavier tanks it will fall victim to ground forces using AT rifles and in urban places with many places to hide that would serious threat.

>>35075843
>>hitting IED is less likely due to smaller tracks and low ground pressure

lol

File: smartcar.jpg (76KB, 799x581px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 799x581px

>>35075843
>>cheap as fuck
could be cheaper

>>35075843
The Wiesel is cute. But think like this
>infantry
Just arm everyone with disposable AT weapons and there you go, that is even cheaper

File: Scorpion Granby.jpg (3MB, 2770x1820px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2770x1820px

what about the Scorpion and Scimitar?

these cute little things have unironically mauled the fuck out of T-55s

>>35076032
It's so cute. I want to mount a comically downsized M2 in .22 on it.

>>35075843
>Not making them unmanned
>Not making them semi-autonomous
>Not slaving them and or remote command them from an Abrams

Imagine the rape.

>>35075854
Genius level arguement there, Plato. Your insecurity and unimaginative "humor" is showing...

>>35076331
This guy gets it.

>>35076049
Ability to protect from small arms fire and carry infantry supplies, and carry high power optics and comms?

>>35075843
because wheels are a thing.

File: ApecarMG.jpg (92KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 960x540px

>>35076325

>>35075843
Imagine weasels rushing NSV position and popping like flies

File: 1432290169625.jpg (200KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1200x798px

does BMD series count?
BMD 1 and 2 were puny
BMD 3 and 4 are almost the same size as a BMP 3 but still small compared to most IFVs, can carry 5 infantrymen, offers decent protection from the front (for it's weight) and brings some serious firepower

File: 1200px-MQ-1_Predator_unmanned_aircraft.jpg (214KB, 1199x797px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1199x797px

>>35075843

Tankettes kinda became obsolete with the proliferation of drones.

File: FREEDOM.jpg (27KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 650x366px

>>35076711

File: 1553226_10204003013507505_368151647238681182_o.jpg (369KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 2048x1536px

UC with a 20mm or tow.

>>35076623
No, those are of course decent, but they are not tankettes. Tankete is something like small tank, lack of tank protection and range and powah, but cheap, manuveurable and with enough armament to be considered threat by enemy armor. Old idea from 20's, still it is revived from time to time somewhere around the world (like 'murican M50 Ontos in Vietnam, or said Wiesel). It works well in some situations, in specific terrain or under specific doctrine tankettes are still seeing use, but its not all-around-universal concept and thats why its rarely used.

>>35076711
Wouldn't say so, manned tankettes - yes, but tankettes as the type of "armoured" vehicle is still valid option, just automated.

>>35076800
basically picrelated

File: 67777.png (936KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 800x532px

>>35076813

>>35076325
Don't give me ideas, anon

>>35075876
I don't think a MILAN would punch a hole in an Abrams anon, at least not from the front

File: 1493278949163.jpg (54KB, 448x299px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 448x299px

>>35076821
Extacly, i think we can expect many such vehicles implemented around the world in the coming years. Pic unrelated (i hope, im kinda afraid of automated high caliber howitzer sheds).

File: Harroun[1].jpg (81KB, 960x477px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 960x477px

Oh hi.

>>35075876
>Abrams use .50cals to cut through weasels

OR

>Bother weasels knocked out by single HEAT-MP or canister shot.

>>35075843
>2 man crews
To have an effective grouo of them you would need more crew than the equivalent if an effective unit of MBT's, so you would be paying about the same amount in tanks themselves, then increasing cost on crew.

Also, more succeptible to damage and all out destruction of both vehicle and crew, killing more crew and wasting more money.

Also, I don't think that pathetic little autocannon would even pen a T-72, the most numerous tank on the planet.

>>35076312
Thats because they have guns that dont shoot potatos.

File: ee-t4_foto-engesa-1.jpg (366KB, 800x496px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 800x496px

Engesa Ogum
designed by the same guys who designed the Osório mbt.
The iraq army was testing one when the first gulf war broke out, and it desappeared.
It was unlikely that it took part in combat operations, it was probably sized by the US

I dont know man, seems like hell to maintain high numbers of those.

File: 1170722-m2_browning_machine_gun.jpg (8KB, 320x215px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 320x215px

>>35075843
*blocks your path*

File: scorpion.jpg (658KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 2048x1536px

You mean like these little sons of bitches?

File: m2b.jpg (84KB, 748x421px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 748x421px

>>35077138
>teleports behind you

>>35075843
What's the purpose of a tankette exactly?

>If the enemy has tanks, you're fucked.
>If the enemy has IFVs, you're fucked.
>If the enemy has HMGs, you're fucked.
>If the enemy has infantry AT launcers, you're fucked.
>If the enemy has AM rifles, you're fucked.

How are they anything other than a pretty expensive coffin?

File: Wiesel 2 des 5. JgBtl 292 am Hindukusch.jpg (198KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1600x900px

>>35077284
>Having a 20mm autocannon when your enemy doesn't.

>Having a few Stingers on a light vehicle to deter (maybe even take out) enemy CAS.

>Having a few TOWs on a light vehicle to take out old Russian tanks.

Against a modern professional army it would probably not be very useful, though, I think you're right there.

>>35077318
>>Having a 20mm autocannon when your enemy doesn't.
They actually have a 30mm autocannon for the Wiesel.

File: Wiesel 1 TOW.jpg (171KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x819px

>>35077574
Interesting, didn't know that.

File: 3abed8c357b6[1].jpg (89KB, 599x352px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 599x352px

>>35077641

File: Hotchkiss_Schutzenpanzer[1].jpg (155KB, 652x435px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 652x435px

>>35077651

File: wiesel_1_bmk_30mm_vt-001i.jpg (83KB, 700x563px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 700x563px

>>35077608
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_RMK30
Recoilless autocannon but still manages to pack quite a punch. From german wiki:
> ihre Mündungsenergie beträgt mindestens 156 Kilojoule
The projectile energy is at least 156Kj when leaving the barrel.

What does /k/ think of the options open to the ADF. These will replace the M113.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(Rheinmetall_armoured_fighting_vehicle)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)

File: F2007020710305400009[1].jpg (58KB, 555x417px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 555x417px

>>35077608
RMK 30, recoiless autocannon. They tested it in the 90s, but only put it into service on the Tiger helicopter.

>>35075843
This is retarded. WWII Germany had it right with the STUG IIIG. One model with an anti tank gun and another with a direct fire howitizer for punching through enemy positions.

If they used the same concept then yes these little tankettes would be effective however only having one model that tries to be both infantry support and tank is stupid. Make one model with a 152mm howizter and another with a 105mm gun.

File: Capture.png (637KB, 806x399px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 806x399px

>>35075843
>WHERE IS KEBAB

>>35077754
G*ermans love kebabs

>>35077318
>Against a modern professional army

Doesn't every Mohammed and Abdullah and their mothers have an RPG-7 these days?

That's the impression I get when I see how wasteful they are with them in their videos. Surely and RPG-7 would spell trouble for a Wiesel?

>>35077773
The amount of dune coon pictures with large caliber rifles and hmgs in the syrian threads is scary.

File: Capture.png (249KB, 425x729px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 425x729px

>>35076821

File: 1435679368483.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>35077715
Nice

>>35077773
Depending on how easy it is to hit this tiny thing with an RPG. Also, I'm assuming it would be used by a competent army, not by sand people who'd just park it in the middle of a street.

File: Birth of a Wiesel.jpg (352KB, 1024x629px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1024x629px

>>35077773
Well this >>35077811, I'm fairly sure a relatively professional army like the Bundeswehr wouldn't drive a Wiesel without infantry suppor in the middle of a city held by enemies.

Wiesels were used by the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan and I haven't heard anything bad about it.

Also, in the middle of the Afghan mountains or steppe a 20/30mm autocannon should outrange an RPG easily.

>>35075854
Yeah america did "better"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMx4KBCpV40

>>35076623
Wiesel was made for specific purpose of been CH-47 internally transportable. This is very tight requirement. BMD can't fit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7wsaTkFgw

File: id_m22_locust_02_700.png (206KB, 504x355px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 504x355px

>>35075843
I'd say one of the main reasons is, US has a lot of airborne recon options, and Wiesel was designed as a light recon vehicle.

When it comes to infantry support, Bradleys and other light vehicles that carry troops provide that already, as well as anti-tank capability with ATGMs. Introducing a new vehicle into the armed forces is a lot of money and effort, both better spent on upgrading the currently used gear, not to mention homogenization trend that is going on.

All of that being said, US ordered some Wiesels for drone trials, and this is a very interesting idea in my opinion.

File: IMG_0071.jpg (99KB, 1088x724px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1088x724px

>>35076032

File: 1336665436-elceven2cv1.png (649KB, 650x391px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 650x391px

>>35077641
Very cute tankette

>>35076312
You are an idiot, they ironically mauled them. Moron.

File: fv102_striker_l5[1].jpg (77KB, 900x507px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 900x507px

>>35076762
FV 102 Striker.

>>35077284
Allows a very light vehicle that fits inside a helicopter that can carry weapons that infantry can't (easily). They're more self-propelled weapons carriers than anything else.

File: IMG_2091.jpg (141KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 700x525px

>>35076312
Mk2 Scimitars are an excellent vehicle if your requirements are being light enough for helicopter transport.

>>35075843
Because armies realize that technicals do the same thing cheaper and an transport costs are nil due to local sourcing of vehicles and use of existing civilian supply chain for spare parts

>>35076312
>these helped remove argies from british clay
good stuff

>>35079408
Explain the fucking grids please.

>>35079603
so when is the new technical line of combat vehicles going to come out?

>>35079723
Spaced armor to stop sand farmers with rpg-7s

File: hdY5gYQ[1].jpg (85KB, 760x518px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 760x518px

>>35079723
premature detonation of shaped charge munitions

>>35079723
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slat_armor

>>35079734
>>35079763
ok thanks

>>35079723
>Explain the fucking grids please.
Are you fucking retarded?

>>35076049
>>35076325
A Cute!!!

>>35075843
It's just a tiny bradley but worse
>25mm Chaingun
>ATGM that isn't shit, but is still useless against tanks due to time-to-target, optics, etc
>Can't be carried by heli but can defeat larger-caliber weaponry
>Crew of 3 + 6 dismounts (8+ if you really cram in there and don't give a fuck about comfort), allowing for dedicated radio operator
>Maneuverable enough
>Can carry way more ammo for dismounts, ammo for main gun + ATGMs, as well as stuff to actually live out of

I don't see the appeal, under what doctrine would these things be useful at all, anyway? Little/no access to aerial recon?

>>35076850
That shed has the weirdest boner right now

>>35079814
Or not a tank specialist?
I honestly thought it was to prevent Abdul to stick a mine, like in war movies....

>>35079763
>destruction of grenade
>detonation

>>35076926
It can be outfitted with a ATGM tho.

>>35079763

Actually, it's not about premature detonation (look at picture you posted - RPG DO NOT detonate after going through bars) but to fuck up a shape/geometry of shaped charge and therefore fuck up Munroe effect, greatly lowering the penetration ability of said SC warhead.

>>35079905
ATGM's are only useful against tanks if you ambush them, which would/should be a rare occurence, even for a tiny little thing like that. Pretty sure the other guy is talking about a stand-up fight, in which case his points would be correct.

>>35079849
The Wiesel is nothing like the Bradley. The Bradley is an IFV, and currently weighs, with all applique armor, ~38 tons. The Wiesel is just an armored weapons carrier, and weighs ~3-5 tons, depending on which version it is. It's just a weapons platform that moves faster than an infantryman, carries more, and has better optics. They support infantry.

>Little/no access to aerial recon?
This is a different topic, but ground based reconnaissance will always be valuable. The US certainly has plenty of it as well.

the germans are smart and the wiesel makes tons of sense

Just the 20mm autocannon is wonderful fire support (not like you mallninja ar-15 cucks know ANYTHING about real combat, this coming from a slav who actually was deployed), it rips shit up, the whole thing is mobile and dudes can ride on it, ATGM is also a great thing to have and be mobile with it

again, just having a mobille 20mm rapecannon with you warms the heart of any infantryman

>>35077793
Someone make a Pepe edit of this

>>35079905
Yeah except you can carry an ATGM on basically everything including dirt bikes

>>35079863

What SAMs this qt are using? Stingers?

>>35079925
>that shitty fire rate

Why not just have a dune buggy drive around with a pair of guys that jumps out with a hand mortar

they'd shoot twice as fast

File: image.jpg (130KB, 624x805px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 624x805px

>>35076847
>what is top attack

>>35079929
I get that it's not a Bradley, but the existence of Bradleys and other IFVs obviates the need for it, no? If it were to go more recon-y, couldn't you just make it even lighter, and/or strip the gun for more powerful optics, or even just use a Humvee? Then what makes it a good recon vehicle? If it were to go more kill-y, then an IFV would work better. If it were to go more logistic-y, then just use a truck. If it's just a weapons platform, why not just use an M113?

Recon is always valuable, but it seems there are way better vehicles designed for it. The one thing they said is that it can be loaded into a Chinook, which is neat, but seems like limited application practically speaking.

File: Boys2.jpg (71KB, 774x506px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 774x506px

The main reason is because they are vulnerable to infantry anti tank weapons like rockets and high caliber rifles.

>>35080002
Basically as mechanized infantry support it has utility, but as a tank alternative there is no point.

>>35080002
This.

You can take out a weasel with some HEAPI 7.62 nato, or a 50 with bog standard ammo.

>>35079993
Being able to be carried by helicopters does add a lot of strategic mobility. It is the same reason that stationary artillery pieces are generally preferred to SPGs.

File: Capture.png (6KB, 1185x30px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 1185x30px

>>35079849
>Can't be carried by heli
???

>>35079993
I've got to run for now, but I'll be back in an hour or so to write a full response to this. Part of your question starts getting into the armed reconnaissance question and why that is needed, which in and of itself is a sizable topic, and books could be written on it alone.

>>35080053
Oh so it's a big picture thing, fair enough, then. Could it then be said that tactically speaking the Wiesel doesn't perform any better than anything else, and is more along the lines of a Jack-of-all-Trades, if even that, or is there something that really sets it apart even there?

>>35080066
I was talking about the Bradley

>>35080088
>I was talking about the Bradley
Oh, my bad

>>35080086
Sick, I'll keep the thread refreshed and look forward to it, then.

File: Generals_Sentry_Drone.jpg (14KB, 250x171px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x171px

>>35076821
The world just keeps looking more like Generals.

>>35080051

Same goes for a every fucking single foot soldier. Does it mean that infantry is useless and obsolete?

File: 1280px-Hägglunds_BvS10.jpg (229KB, 1280x889px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1280x889px

Because they get fucking shredded in conventional warfare. Guided mortar munitions and ATGMs turn them and their crew into slag and bratwurst filling as soon as they show up.

Light tracked vehicles should be for transport and utility and nothing else.

>>35080116
Did you forget that this vehicle has two guys inside of it, you idiot?

The fact that full caliber rifle rounds presents a significant threat to this vehicle is terrible. If your going to invest in a 20mm cannon, put it on a vehicle worth a damn.

>>35080116
Except infantry aren't a 5 ton 12'x6' tractor with a gun slapped on top.

File: b0477ee332b7efd01b39d4a2563960ff--battle-tank-military.jpg (52KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 736x552px

>>35076850
Nah. Dedicated long-range active protection system carriers might see the light of day soon though. Turretless MBT chassis things with pop-up launchers or such.

MBTs themselves are better served by ultra close range APS systems that can disrupt APFSDS projectiles.

Though I guess something like a AA-loadout wiesel *could* work as unmanned ground vehicle.

>>35080088
Yah, large fast armored vehicles would be ideal in some hypothetical cold war scenario fighting the soviets in Europe. In our current strategic doctrine however we are mostly operating in underdevelopment third world countries and often in rough terrain. Our forces basically always have air superiority and rarely face any capable enemy armor. In this situation a small lightly armored vehicle that can carry 3-5 soldiers, heavyish weapons, optics, electronic equipment, spare ammo, and infantry supplies with a small visual profile (I have no idea about it's thermal and radar profile) can be very useful. Being able to quickly deploy from a fire base into rough terrain from a helicopter is also a huge bonus. It means that you do not have to travel on back country roads as much which means you do not have to secure them or sweep them for mines as often. Basically it is a choice between designing your military for low intensity warfare or for some hypothetical total war between superpowers.

>>35076623
Police-up that trash you commie fags!

File: beep boop bop motha fucka.jpg (14KB, 703x34px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 703x34px

>>35075843
>but that isn´t worth much today anyway due to IEDs and powerfull rocket lauchers beeing capable of deactivating tanks anyway.

One, you spell like a five year old.
Two, the most MBTs now how some form of resilience to both of those named threats.

However, it could have some alternative uses...

File: tankatshop.jpg (518KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 2048x1536px

>>35077284
It can go places bigger armor can't. Having one able to get up a small mountain road with AA or TOW missiles could be gamechanging.

>>35080246
A flotilla of mortar-carrier UGVs sharing telemetry with a network of recon aerial drones would be pretty baller. The drones could perhaps map out ground topography in advance so UGVs could have an easier time with AI pathfinding if manual remote control is unavailable or not needed.

Would make a great cavalry scout.

Wiesel should be equipped with a hardkill system.
Also a drone Wiesel weapon carrier would be interesting.

>>35076353
stay mad small dicked german blood :^)

>>35079957
>>35079981
Armor against light arms, faster deploying time and better sights.
>>35080002
There is always an infantry operated weapon that can take out your vehicle.

>>35080442
>There is always an infantry operated weapon that can take out your vehicle.
When I was in gunnery training on the Bradley, infantry was the highest priority target in a multiple hostile engagement.

>>35075854
Very convincing

>>35079981
>they'd shoot twice as fast
Only without aim adjustment. Setting up mortar takes ages. Also recoiling mortar are about twice as accurate than simple stokes brandt mortar.

>>35079987
>milan
>top attack

>>35080822
Wiesels are not even equipt with Milan

they use TOW (BGM-71)

Wiesels are great. Light and agile armor that's transportable by helicopter. They would be awesome for airborne units and marines.

My dad was with the LAV test team and he said that it was the Germans that made marine generals interested in lighter vehicles, but I'm surprised they never explored the wiesel.

Not everything needs to be a god damn hulking behemoth

>>35079993
>light recon vehicle + autocannon

The US is going with a JLTV and LW30.

>>35080725
>takes ages to set up a mortar

Lol no. My platoon could set up a gunline in 3 minutes and we were slow.

>>35076711
Do you really think every battle will be in permissive airspace?

>>35075908

how effective would a molotov or bundled grenades be against it?

File: Vect1.png (2MB, 1690x1670px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1690x1670px

>Small carrying capacity, pax
>Small cargo stowage
>Dead angles for arguably shit current-day anti ballistics(see cargo, pax utility)
>Lose space, pax in an airborne role
>Most guns can be fitted to other platforms
>Rarity of in-theater extra vital gear, repairs cq commonality

Even the Bundeswehr want to switch to benzes iirc. For crossing ditches, atv capability is neat though.

Personally I'd like to see a wheeled atv that can be slaved to a modern type m548 tracked cargo carrier, easy entry and still use it's pintle, ring mount machine guns.

>>35080292
Pretty epic for doing something like overwatch.

>helis drop off UGVs on some high ass nigh-impossible-to-reach-by-foot mountain over a valley
>drones detect kebab
>commence bombing the shit out of kebab

I suppose have a team there to make sure the drones don't jam or do something stupid like drive off the cliff.

>>35076331
Just like the unmanned Little Birds controlled by the Apache gunner! I'm in love with this idea, anon.

File: XeW0yRR[1].jpg (55KB, 600x425px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x425px

>>35079993
Okay, so we're going to separate this into several different questions. The first is explaining to you what exactly the Wiesel is, because you still somehow don't get it. The second is why the characteristics of the Wiesel make it good at what it does. The third is a larger discussion of the use of armored vehicles in reconnaissance.

So to understand what the Wiesel is and why it's used, you have to look at organization. Wiesels are not used in tank battalions. They're not used in mechanized infantry battalions. They're used in parachute/air assault units. That means they're going in places and with weight constraints that normal AFVs aren't placed under. These Fallschirmjager units really did need something to help them carry around their gear, notably their heavy equipment, such as AA weapons, . They were using pic related. Many/most of those vehicles didn't even have ATGMs mounted back there, they were just flat backs. They were general purpose vehicles. Some of them even had shitty 20mm AA guns back there. Long story short, they were unarmored pieces of shit. Everyone on them would be slaughtered by any sort of small arms or even a mortar going off anywhere close. Understandably, eventually it was decided that this wasn't good enough, and that they wanted something more. Enter the Wiesel. It gives you the same capability and roughly the same transportability, and arguably more tactical mobility when on the ground, all on a chassis which won't get slaughtered by any old schmuck with a rifle. A fun fact, a Wiesel 1's base chassis is lighter than an up-armored humvee. The Wiesel is just an armored platform that has different stuff put on it to do different jobs. None of the others of what you said will do those jobs and fit in a helicopter.
(1/3?)

File: 020g[1].jpg (71KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x600px

>>35079993
>>35081350
So now we've explained the conditions behind where the Wiesel came from, what makes it good at what it does? Well, a Wiesel 1 is very small, very light, and very mobile. The chassis alone is shorter than most men standing beside it. This makes it easy to hide. This allows for the mobile anti-tank weapon that the Fallschirmjager so badly needed at the time. Because it was so small, it was hard to see, particularly when dug in and properly camouflaged. Incidentally, this feature helps both the anti-tank and reconnaissance variants. Incidentally, your comment about removing armament to hold better sensors is exactly what they did. Pic related (providing I remember to attach it) The Wiesel 1 has only one other variant- a fire support version armed with a 20mm autocannon. This can be found in a heavy weapons company, which just provides supporting fires for the rifle companies in the battalion. This would be the same thing as the direct fire portion of a weapons company in any other light infantry battalion, except instead of M2s and Mk 19s, it has a 20mm autocannon. They're not meant to fight enemy armor, although they could destroy light armor in a pinch. Presumably, some ATGM carriers are in here as well.

Then the Wiesel 2 was created. They realized they had this great platform in the Wiesel 1, so they made it a bit longer so they could use the chassis for more things, and put in a bigger engine to deal with the heavier weight. The Wiesel 2 has an AA variant, which carries some SAMs to provide SHORAD for the battalion. It also has something as simple as an ambulance variant, which gives the Fallschirmjager a vehicle capable of rescuing wounded troops and keeping them safe from small arms fire (and some artillery fragments). Additionally, there's a version carrying a mortar, which is good, because 120mm mortars provide a hell of a lot of boom, but they're heavy as sin, so not easily man portable.
(2/3?)

>>35075854
i like the snide astroturfing slav & pro-antifa comments to this

>>35079993
>>35081372
And would you know it, I just copied over the last page there. Fucking hell. I'm not rewriting it again. You're getting the real short version this time.

So basically, cavalry units, for that is indeed what most reconnaissance forces are, have two basic jobs, from which the rest of their work is derived: Finding the other guy's main forces and keeping him from finding your own. These are the dual tasks of reconnaissance and counter reconnaissance.

Armored cavalry can specialize in either the really big and well armored portion, being very good at counter reconnaissance and a task derived from it- screening. This is why American cavalry formations during the Cold War consisted of Bradleys and Abrams.

However, they're not so good at sneaking in for a look. This is where the other side is. You make your vehicles small, and preferably with good engines. They use stealth as their ally to try and get information. If found, they'll try to run away and try again. On the defensive, they can be nearly impossible to spot. On the offensive, they might find your main body and thusly ruin your day. They're not so good at counter-reconnaissance, but are often well enough armed to fight against other reconnaissance vehicles and infantry.

The stealthy side is very good when there isn't a solid front line, and the enemy is unable to tie in all their units. The Soviets subscribed to this idea. They thought that WW3 would be predominantly a series of meeting engagements, with very few set piece battles. Part of their thinking was that nuclear weapons would make concentrating anything larger than a battalion a no-no.

And that's pretty much it. I'll stick around for further questions if you've got any.

>>35080900
That's short term. There's supposed to be a dedicated vehicle sooner or later. However, this is the Army, it's likely they'll just stick with that.

>>35075843
>Every infantry platoon has several AT-4s.
>Weasel armor useless against even light infantry
>Weasel goes home to find its wife fucking an Abrams
The absolute state of Armor these days...

>>35077715
>only put it into service on the Tiger helicopter.
Actualy the project was canceled, the german Tigers have no nose gun.

>>35081880
>Germans being in charge of producing anything
Sasuga Germany

File: pz1pz3.jpg (126KB, 545x345px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 545x345px

>>35076325
fund it

File: 1458517026717.jpg (102KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 960x720px

>>35076821
neat

>>35081475
The JLTV was chosen instead of a dedicated vehicle.

>>35075843
Well, if I'm a Western leader then I want to protect my guys from casualties as much as possible, and I can afford to.
On the other hand, imagine I'm some 3rd world tinpot leader. I can buy a bunch of tankettes, but what would that bring me that would be better than building a bunch of technicals that guys with ATGMs and heavy MGs can ride in, plus refurbishing a bunch of old ZSUs for the autocannon punch and BMPs for the off-road mobility?

>>35075843

because most countries are using something like a bradley fighting vehicle, which has the same armament plus a bunch of dudes in it.

>>35082358
Nope. The JLTV is likely the interim option, but the program to look for a new cavalry vehicle is still ongoing.

File: aaaaaaaaaaa.jpg (7KB, 183x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 183x183px

>>35081350
>>35081372
>>35081444
I saw this and gave up on my post because it's more informative than "you're a dumb fucker why are you comparing apples to oranges" and those triples of course.

I just don't get why most of the thread is completely fucking retarded besides this is /k/ and most smart people have moved on. Saying the Wiesel isn't like an IFV or a tank is like looking at those armored bulldozers mashing up bawling Palestinians and going "LOL ISRAEL WHAT ARE YOU DOING GET A M ONE ABRABS DUMMY!!!!!!!!" Fucking just because it has tracks doesn't make it a tank you dumb dickheads.

>>35082749
>the program to look for a new cavalry vehicle is still ongoing.

There is no program to look for a new cavalry vehicle after the JLTV.

>>35075854
MAYTUL BAWXES

>>35081350
>>35081372
>>35081444
Very good posts, on one hand i would say it is wasted on the guy you are responding to, but on the other it is very informative for everyone who is interested or just bystanding. Keep up the good work.

>>35082832
>>35082956
The only way to make /k/ high quality is to contribute high quality content. If one person does it, he might inspire another, who might inspire another.

>>35075843
would be a nice infantry deterrent pair with other armored vehicles to provide more support. tankette can go hull down behind larger tank to provide protection against technical/ infantry flanking

>>35076331
And then every MBT commander can have a pet Wiesel! It'd be so cute!

>>35081350
>>35081372
>>35081444

Nice. Do you think there is room for a Wiesel-type vehicle in US doctrine?

>>35075876
MILAN's are shitbox tier Cold War era missiles that were not as effective as even an ITOW
>>35075908
The Wiesel is thin aluminum like the BMD.
Armor piercing 7.62 *could* penetrate it, normal .50 will cut right through it

File: 745.png (211KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 327x316px

>>35075876
you've thought of everything, huh?

>>35084961
I'm going to go with the more measured "sort of".

America does have a whole lot of airborne forces, and it thinks quite highly of their usefulness. However, they're also realistic. Modern anti-aircraft weapons makes it impossible to jump almost on top of their objectives, as was seen in WW2. Instead, paratroopers will need to jump farther away from their objective (and the AA that's presumably on or near it) and then travel by land to the objective. To do this effectively, they'll need vehicles dropped with them. Not only do they need vehicles to provide transportation, but they need at least two other capabilities filled- rapid destruction of enemy obstacles and entrenchments as well as a good cavalry vehicle to ensure the main body of the airborne forces can move quickly and unmolested by enemy forces.

The answer to the first half is the MPF program. Basically an airborne light tank. This can also help with the second half, but a "normal" cavalry vehicle would probably be a necessity as well. It should be noted that the US requires dismounts for its cavalry vehicles in addition to regular crew, and for good reason. This can likely be filled by the JLTV with a 30mm autocannon on top, but I don't know how well you'd make them airborne.

But that doesn't answer your question. Wiesel-type would be specifically a small armored vehicle that can fit inside a helicopter. There is one area where I could see it, and that's in the USMC. If they air assaulted in from offshore, having a halfway armored weapons platform might be nice while waiting for their normal heavier equipment to make their way up from the beaches. The funny thing is that the USMC spent god knows how many millions of dollars on a shitty jeep (the Growler ITV) to fit in a V-22. A Wiesel type vehicle might do well in that role.

But is there a pressing need for a true Wiesel type? Probably not. It certainly wouldn't hurt if it was there, but it likely won't be overly missed.

>>35076623
The BMD-1 and 2 are still used because they can be carried internally inside a Mi-6 (out of service) and a Mi-26.
The BMD can be sling loaded by newer Mi-8/17 variants with the improved engines - usually the BMD-1P since it's the lightest.
Some of the later Mi-8/17's also have redesigned cargo areas and cargo access so it's feasible they could be carried internally unloaded or dissassembled

>>35085004
Duh, of course.The original Milan F1 is a man-portable missile that is ten years older than the I-TOW. If you want a TOW equivalent from Euromissile, look at the HOT.


And btw, the Wisel is equipped with a TOW launcher.

>>35075843
Germans are white guilt cucks that want to be taken over by islam.

Also, they lost two world wars...I don't think anyone should be taking military advice from them.

>>35085244
>The BMD-1 and 2 are still used because they can be carried internally inside a Mi-6 (out of service) and a Mi-26.

BMD-1 and 2 are still used because Russia has no money to build BMD-4/4M enough. Also BMP-2.

because the entire point of a Wiesel was to deploy an autocannon in places where a tank or BMP couldn't go. The entire idea was basically STUG doctrine from WW2 where you could deploy a fast MILAN/TOW in a woodline that you'd be expecting infantry, especially out of the way where noone could deploy heavy armour.

They aren't meant for front line combat. They are meant to be an ambush vehicle.

>>35085676
Jesus christ the Wehraboos are going to lose their shit

>>35085004
>The Wiesel is thin aluminum like the BMD.
BMD has frontal .50 protection and sides protection from steel core AP 7.62.

>>35075843
>IR heat signature from miles away.
>Dead within minutes.
>Hunk of taxpayer junk.
Gee I wonder why.

File: Hmmwv-036[1].jpg (105KB, 928x512px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 928x512px

>>35086306
>implying implications

>>35080619
Cute

CUTE

>>35077284
Recce.

>>35077641
http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Hammer_tank