40-caliber bros, we lose.

Sweds are buying brand new CV9035s to replace CV9040s which were sent to Ukraine and also to provide new ones to Ukraine.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    im not what the point is? you gonna have a bunch of 40mm and some 35mm?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you gonna have a bunch of 40mm and some 35mm?
      Simple, provide all 40mm variants to Ukraine and the buy 35mm to replace. No longer need to maintain 40mm

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but if thats the plan then why get version 3 and not 4?

        these things will be around at least 25 years so buying old shit that you wont use makes no sense.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, unironically.
      The 40 variant has seen zero development for 20 years, while the 30/35 is the most up to date with regards to FCS and everything. Running legacy 40mm and a small fleet of MOTS 30mm vehicle is cheaper than spending a lot of money updating the 40mm

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are buying new cv9035’s to replace the 9040c’s sent to Ukraine. They chose a commercialy available version because they wanted short lead times. The 40mm has not been offered for well over 15 years so, so it’s not a surprise they went with the 35mm

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    35mm seem like a good caliber for IFV.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    does the cv9035 still have less ammo than the 40mm version? i think it was because the gun didnt fit right?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It shouldn’t but it does. That’s more of an issue with the CV90s design rather than the caliber

      Including the 48 rounds stored in the turret, a CV9040B has a total combat load of 234 rounds of 40 mm Bofors ammunition.
      A CV9035 has storage options for a total of 203 rounds of 35 mm ammunition. The lower number compared to the version armed with the Bofors gun is the result of the less optimal ammunition storage and the belted ammunition.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It seems nuts that they are literally buying worse models than the ones they have.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not exactly, they still have triple the amount of ammunition ready at the gun than the bofors version

          The CV9040 has a total of 24 rounds available at the gun (three rows of eight rounds) with a further 24 rounds being located in a carousel magazine used as ready racks.
          The CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds available at the gun, consisting of two belts a 35 rounds.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the carousel magasize has 48 rounds.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Those still aren’t ready rounds. I apologize my source says 24

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What source?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Apparently not a good one because after further investigating everyone else is saying 48 in the carousel.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          belt fed guns have a big advantage - reload is much faster, and belts are easy to replace if faulty while autoloader malfunction means your out of luck until its fixed

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Worse in what way?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's a pretty big difference. Seems completely backasswards too, how they manage to frick that up like that?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          People don’t seem to understand how small the CV90 actually is. The bushmaster 3 on the other hand is gigantic

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. They bought an off the shelf frickhuge American gun based off of the m242 and put it in a tiny vehicle. The gun is great but rather cumbersome in such a small package

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    40mm never made sense. Too bulky with not enough upside. Either go full general purpose 20-30mm or useful bigger calibers that allow you to carry a decent amount of ammo but also take advantage of programmable munitions. The world is healing with this procurement decision

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sweden plans $7 billion more military support for Ukraine to 2026
      https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-plans-7-bln-military-support-frame-ukraine-2024-2026-2024-05-22/

      >40mm never made sense
      The most important factor in war is coolness factor, 40mm is cool.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Made perfect sense for Sweden at the time.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In a “what do we do with all of these extra bofors guns we have lying around” type of way. Not really any practical reasoning to go with the bofors

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          40mm Bofors is an archaic gun/cartridge, Sweden used it on their CV90 back then because they were still heavily invested in it then

          this meme has to end

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s not a meme it’s representative of the CV90s development. Sweden had a booming industry producing 40mm bofors AA guns. Sweden slapped them on their IFV. Not a single other CV90 user bought the cv9040.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              We looked at it and concluded for us the 40 or the 57 mm was the best choices with the 25 mm bushmaster coming in last.

              Not because of economic reasons but because we wanted a bigger she'll capable of being 3P.

              We choose the 40 over the 57 because of Economics

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                False. The bofors was chosen because Sweden had a pile of them and then they made the trials fit the bill. Sorry that you don’t like it. The only other country to use bofors is South Korea who is the second largest manufacturer of 40mm aa guns. No one else wanted it and now even Sweden is moving away from it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we want a vehicle that is incapable of killing tanks from the front
                what the hell? No wonder it’s being outright replaced

                Nta but take your meds. Living your entire life on a Belarusian Tractor forum should be anathema to a healthy human being.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not because of economic reasons but because we wanted a bigger she'll capable of being 3P.

                3P didn't exist when the CV90 was first introduced.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Shhhh you’re going to ruin the revisionist history lesson we are receiving.

                [...]
                Nta but take your meds. Living your entire life on a Belarusian Tractor forum should be anathema to a healthy human being.

                No argument, resort to Shinzo posting

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No but general plans for it did and we had proximity fuzed ammo, i just streamlined the explanation, you can find and read the papers on the development.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                People don’t trust the development papers because it looked like sweden just made them fit their decision to use up some of their 40mm barrel surplus. It’s no coincidence that only Sweden and South Korea use bofors guns on their IFV, both of which are the biggest manufacturers of bofors guns

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sweden spent years evaluating everything from 20 to 57mm guns, including making versions with 25mm and 40mm for trials that lasted years.

              After all of this, they came to the conclusion that their existing 40mm, after re-engineering to fit into the vehicle, and with development of new APFSDS and HE-Frag rounds, offered the best balance against the threat spec provided by the FMV, which was
              -reliably defeat armored targets up to and including T72's from flank positions
              >reliably defeat heavy attack and transport helicopters such as Mi24's out to extended ranges
              >surpress and defeat mechanized infantry in heavily wooded areas

              So no, its not like they just looked in the shed behind Bofors and bork-borked

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we want a vehicle that is incapable of killing tanks from the front
                what the hell? No wonder it’s being outright replaced

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >T-72 coming down the road
                >thank god i have my ATGM with 200m minimum distance

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the only scenario of meeting a tank from the front is within 200 meters
                Cope. All you would need to do is fell a few trees and mine that road to stop tanks from coming down it anyway. For the other bigger roads it’s better to have an ATGM rather than a gun that can’t own any tank from the front

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>the only scenario of meeting a tank from the front is within 200 meters
                It's certainly one of the most likely ones, given how large mechanized forces operate and how IFVs in particular would likely make contact advancing towards the enemys mech/armor lines on exactly those kinds of smaller logging trails. Keeping in mind that this was designed to face against the soviets, it had to to be able to have some change against the sprinkling of t-72s the soviets placed among their scouting/first line mech platoons and companies.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                None of these roads would be useable. They would be mined and blocked with trees.
                > had to to be able to have some change against the sprinkling of t-72s the soviets placed among their scouting/first line mech platoons and companies.
                Then it needs an ATGM. Non negotiable

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're not always on the defensive you know. And if you are then just set up the dismounts with their ATGMs in good locations and use the mines you carry with your IFV to make an ambush-/choke-/delaypoint since you have the luxury of time and were not talking about the split seconds of making head on contact with enemy armor. And as other anons have said,vehicle mounted ATGMS especially of the time were a poor fit for the terrain and doctrine of Sweden. Better to just fling 40mm towards their face immediately after making a contact, hopefully blinding or dazing them and probably breaking something in the process. At the same time backing out to behind cover and then cooperating with your dismounts and other vehicles to get effective fire on target. Mind you 'cover' is pretty much omnipresent in Sweden with all the knolls and rolling often rocky terrain left over from the glaciers raking across the landscape.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >+90% chance of the IFV being destroyed by the tank
                >platoon loses multiple ATGM missiles, ~8 stored vehicle kills if the IFV goes up in flames
                No thank you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                10% chance of making it out of the encounter beats the hell out of 0% chance.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can't fight a war without casualties. You're cannon fodder anyway.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Da. Better to lose 10 men than 8 missiles.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                10 men for 8 enemy vehicles sounds like a good trade for me. Troops are a resource to be consumed.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Their shed of 40mm Bofors played a significant role in the selection, had it not existed Sweden would have gone with 35mm.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It definitely was part of their reasoning due to cost (the 57mm as well, would have been fun to watch), but doubtful that it would have gone down the 35mm way, unless they felt strongly about integrating something like the Oerlikon 35mm. There was talk of re-using the 20mm from the old vehicles in a 40/20 split for economical reasons, so it might have ended just using 20mm instead

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What if we made a vehicle that's just as weak against the gorillion anti tank weapons that exist today - just like a tank.
    But it's almost useless if it faces an enemy tank from the front 😀

    tl;dr just use a tank if you want a mobile coffin. no, putting on 6 million dollaridoos APS doesn't make them less obsolete

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh SIX GORILLION DOLLARS APS
      *farts in your general direction*

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the little red triangle is so bouncy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why don’t IFVs ever get APS

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They do though? The US just recently announced over 200 units are getting iron fist. Lynx was also slated to get one a few years back but I haven’t kept up on it to see if they did

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why don’t IFVs ever get APS

            The labors of educating the masses never ends...

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              SECOND TO NONE

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              God I want one so bad

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Bradley looking hot in a fresh coat of military gray

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Ready rounds” as “rounds from which you can fire without manual loading”, since these are autocannons. So the CV9040 gets the quick-access rounds counted as ‘stowage’, because someone has to grab them and refill the 24-round ready feed system (three eight-round racks).
    >The K21 gets credit for 224 rounds because the 200 rounds it has under the turret basket are connected to the gun via an automatic resupply system. No manual top-off required.

    K21 bros, are we gods?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is that the IFV that constantly drowns it's crew?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You also have take into account how easy it is to reload said 'magazine' from your non direct ammo storage. For the CV9030 for example that's just a a job of a minute or two for a decent crew per belt assuming they haven't fired it completely dry and can just link up with the tail of the previous. If completely empty the maybe 3 minutes.
      The bmp-2 on the other hand from what I've seen is a complete nightmare to reload and you have to basically disassemble the turret floor first. Easily 10> minutes for a reload from watching from the sidelines.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      200 rounds is overexaggerated. I'd say 122 at max.(24+24+74)

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what doesnt it have a akeron missile launcher

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Outdated doctrinal beliefs most likely

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Swedish terrain. Better to dismount ATGMs than keep them on vehicles.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not true at all. Better to have both

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's better to not tie AT-capabilities onto a vehicle, when you're expected to fight in a terrain where those ATGMs will not be able to outcompete MBT main guns. In terrain where shoulder carried AT weapons like the NLAW are well within range to destroy the enemy. The space and cost of the ATGMs in the IFV could be used to buy more AT capabilities for the infantry.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well said.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not well said

                https://i.imgur.com/06S4ly9.jpeg

                It's better to not tie AT-capabilities onto a vehicle, when you're expected to fight in a terrain where those ATGMs will not be able to outcompete MBT main guns. In terrain where shoulder carried AT weapons like the NLAW are well within range to destroy the enemy. The space and cost of the ATGMs in the IFV could be used to buy more AT capabilities for the infantry.

                The NLAW certainly shouldn’t be the main weapon for ground forces to kill tanks. It’s meant to be something to give to troops for popping targets of opportunity. Dismounts might be loaded up when a tank appears so it’s better to also have the ability to kill that tank with an integrated ATGM. There was recently a video of a Bradley killing t-80 on a long road. Both vehicles were facing eachother and the Bradley would not have been able to dispatch the tank without those atgms. I didn’t save the webm but I’m sure someone has it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The NLAW certainly shouldn’t be the main weapon for ground forces to kill tanks. It’s meant to be something to give to troops for popping targets of opportunity. Dismounts might be loaded up when a tank appears so it’s better to also have the ability to kill that tank with an integrated ATGM. There was recently a video of a Bradley killing t-80 on a long road. Both vehicles were facing eachother and the Bradley would not have been able to dispatch the tank without those atgms. I didn’t save the webm but I’m sure someone has it
                And if pic related is your average fighting terrain, with limited fields of fire, short ranges and your concept is close engagements with mechanized inf, do you still think the best weapon is a vehicle mounted ATGM?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’m not going to pretend there aren’t long straight roads in Sweden because you post pictures do the woods. A cv90 wouldn’t even be able to traverse the picture you just posted

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Im not gonna pretend that either, but if you had ever been to the high north (ie the area where the swedish army would try to stop a ground invasion), you would find that such roads are far and far between. Its literally dense forrests and logging roads for 90% of the time, same as in Finland. But congrats for min-maxing your IFV towards a situation that almost never occurs i guess.
                Ironically the Norwegians are more likely to utilize SPIKE/Jav or Tow systems due to the longer ranges possible in the arctic plateau

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A cv90 wouldn’t even be able to traverse the picture you just posted
                Maybe not exactly that picture but it absolute is capable of going through and manouvering in your average nordic forests. Part of the reason why it's as small as possible so it can actually fit in between the various trees and rocks and what have you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My local environment says the big ones hurt and my IFV is perfect size

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It doesn't take any space to strap a tube on top of the turret.
              Cost is not an issue if it's a smart system.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It doesn't take any space to strap a tube on top of the turret.
                Reloads are kept inside the hull.

                Not well said
                [...]
                The NLAW certainly shouldn’t be the main weapon for ground forces to kill tanks. It’s meant to be something to give to troops for popping targets of opportunity. Dismounts might be loaded up when a tank appears so it’s better to also have the ability to kill that tank with an integrated ATGM. There was recently a video of a Bradley killing t-80 on a long road. Both vehicles were facing eachother and the Bradley would not have been able to dispatch the tank without those atgms. I didn’t save the webm but I’m sure someone has it

                >The NLAW certainly shouldn’t be the main weapon for ground forces to kill tanks. It’s meant to be something to give to troops for popping targets of opportunity.
                No, but those heavier ATGMs are for proper, dedicated AT-troops, where as the NLAW is something your average dismounts can carry with them.
                >Dismounts might be loaded up when a tank appears so it’s better to also have the ability to kill that tank with an integrated ATGM.
                It's a question of terrain. In adverse terrain, light infantry country essentially, it's better for the ATGMs to be with the infantry. It's why the CV90 doesn't have an integrated launcher, except in some prototypes. In an open country like Ukraine or Iraq, it's obviously better for the vehicle itself to have an ATGM, since visibility and engagement ranges are so open and long, that a TOW missile is a serious contender against armor. Bradleys had more MBT kills than Abrams did in the Gulf war; goes to show how well it works in country like that.
                >a video of a Bradley killing t-80 on a long road. Both vehicles were facing eachother and the Bradley would not have been able to dispatch the tank without those atgms. I didn’t save the webm but I’m sure someone has it
                I've seen the footage. Designing your IFVs to contend against old Soviet vehicles with no thermals and mobiks driving them will come back and bite you in the ass.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Reloads are kept inside the hull.
                They don't have to be. In fact I think that's pretty stupid. They should instead store them outside so they can't blow up inside the vehicle or maybe even store all of your shots ready to fire on the turret.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A single mortar bomb landing near your vehicle would then penetrate and destroy all those ATGM launches.
                How would you reload them either?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can just have an armored box on top of the deck and reload like in the Bradley.
                Or if they're all stored loaded you can arrange them in a hexagon pattern for efficiency and put some armor plates onto the outsides.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >light infantry country essentially, it's better for the ATGMs to be with the infantry
                why not have both with a atgm

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There’s no reason not to have both other than cost. There’s no doctrinal reason to exclude a vehicle mounted ATGM

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It does actually. Even if it's just a single shot module on the outside, it still takes away from the crews personal storage.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What if you have to choose due to limited resources?

              You could always go the Marder route and make the ATGM launcher detachable (though make it fireable from inside the vehicle because it's not the fricking 1950s)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What if you have to choose due to limited resources?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              ask for more resources.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where the frick did this imaginary caliber-war come from?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s just people discussing weapons, why is this a problem for you?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        post guns.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, what a weird topic to gatekeep.
          >n..No caliber discussions pwease

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            post the kimber

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >post guns
              No
              >post specific guns
              Does anyone want to fill me in on what kind of poster this is? Anyway back on topic

              What if you have to choose due to limited resources?

              Then autocannon is the most important

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For the most part it's just warriortard/armatard spinning freely, it's part of routine to create infighting among western posters, to make americans look obnoxious and to bend the board to his autism.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good, I like the 35 the best

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    seems a bit of a bloody big gun to put a 40 smith n wesson in, dunnit mate

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      An older meme but it checks out !

      Also people seem to be missing that this is not the new caliber for the STRF90 Fleet and instead these STRF9035 will serve as Interim vehicles until a new one is chosen, 35 or 57 mm seems to be the most likely if we don't stick with the 40/70.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why do we need interim vehicles at all?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          so the MIC makes money

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Military procurement is sometimes a form of money laundering/ kickbacks

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Right now the Decision for the new Strf will be made in 2026 or something like that, I guess they don't want to leave a gap until then.

          Though I am not sure if these will just go into storage or not.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but we have like 400 already. what "gap" is this filling?

            if this was just a way to give money to hägglunds so they expand it makes sense.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >what "gap" is this filling?
              Suwalki

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Upkeeping local production and such keeping the lines operational. Particularly in current times it's better to err on the side of caution and be ready to immediately respond to potential orders either abroad or at home.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is a reason the CV9040 is referred to as the Spettekaka of IFVs, it just isn’t very good. The 35mm variant is excellent though

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Impressive. MEU equivalent when?

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    40mm Bofors is an archaic gun/cartridge, Sweden used it on their CV90 back then because they were still heavily invested in it then

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >40mm Bofors is an archaic gun/cartridge
      Not true at all. In fact, it's one of the most future proof design, especially with the rising threat of drones.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s not future proof at all. Nobody wants full-size 40 when 35/50mm combo is a reality

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What are you basing that on?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its largest user is now procuring 35, the US is procuring 35/50. No one wanting to buy the 40mm. It’s like 25mm, people are just switching away from it. 40mm is fricking huge so ammo capacity will always be a problem. 35/50 solves the problem of 40mms ammo capacity, and 25mm small HE payload.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Its largest user is now procuring 35
              Since when?
              >No one wanting to buy the 40mm
              Except for the Indian military. They're the largest user of L/70 at the moment.
              >40mm is fricking huge so ammo capacity will always be a problem.
              Which is why there's a CT40.
              >35/50 solves the problem of 40mms ammo capacity, and 25mm small HE payload.
              50mm sounds great, but at what cost? Newer calibres will always cost higher than conventional ammunition.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                CT40 is a dogshit unicorn round as well, limited in overall length and by barrel wear, and is only used by the French on their 6x6

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Koreans are mounting it on KAAV-2. Also, Warrior upgrades.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Korea is not using it and the Warrior upgrade was canceled years ago.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                South Korea just adopted 40mm for its land based CIWS system.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >company offers product

                No anon that does not mean Korea adopted it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It’s not future proof at all. Nobody wants full-size 40 when 35/50mm combo is a reality
          You may be right. We might need a larger calibre in the end. But the XM913 is locked down with patents by Northrop, as opposed to a public domain Bofors.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It amazes me how the handful of people who stan 40mm Bofors seem to think it is the only cartridge with timed airburst ammunition.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Can you show us these other calibers with airburst shells in active use?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            35mm

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Where

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just off the top of my head the sky ranger 35mm. Also the US sent 30mm anti drone systems to Ukraine. Stryker shorad uses a 30mm chain gun with airbursting munitions as well.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                anon 35x228 has been an AAA gun for more than half a century

                So no IFVs, got it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                CV90C cannot use airburst ammo so what exactly was the point of your goalpost moving?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >so no IFVs

                https://i.imgur.com/N7tfJ4A.jpeg

                >Its largest user is now procuring 35
                Since when?
                >No one wanting to buy the 40mm
                Except for the Indian military. They're the largest user of L/70 at the moment.
                >40mm is fricking huge so ammo capacity will always be a problem.
                Which is why there's a CT40.
                >35/50 solves the problem of 40mms ammo capacity, and 25mm small HE payload.
                50mm sounds great, but at what cost? Newer calibres will always cost higher than conventional ammunition.

                Then why are you coping with 40mm towed guns? Pick a lane

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's a CIWS, they're mainly for stationary defenses.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The US has armored vehicles with 30mm airbursting shells for drone defense. They can carry a lot more ammo than a 40mm. 30mm can kill drones just fine

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like a great round too.

                30x113mm XM1223 Multi-Mode Proximity Airburst (MMPA) round designed to counter threats from incoming drones and ground troops behind cover, according to budget documents.

                Designed to combat both aerial and ground-based threats in a single mission package, the MMPA will eventually replace both the 30×113mm XM1211 High Explosive Proximity (HEP) and XM1198 High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds currently fielded to U.S. troops to deal with the rise of adversary drones downrange

                “The programmable fuze modes in the munition include proximity airburst to defeat personnel in the open and small Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) targets, proximity delay to defeat personnel in defilade, gated proximity airburst for cluttered environments, mechanical point detonate to defeat light materiel targets, and self destruct to minimize collateral damage,” according to budget documents.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                anon 35x228 has been an AAA gun for more than half a century

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It amazes me how the handful of people who stan 40mm Bofors seem to think it is the only cartridge with timed airburst ammunition.
          The projectile of 40mm L/70 weighs almost a kilo. Even the 35mm can offer only half of that.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BTW, Latvia is also interested in K-21. Largely due to its superior anti-drone performance shown at the competition.

    https://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=213868
    >The K21 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, produced by Hanwha Aerospace, is highly likely to be exported to Latvia this year.

    >Hanwha Aerospace is currently participating in the Latvian Army’s armored vehicle replacement project with its K-21 Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The project involves about 100 units and is valued at 4 trillion won.

    >The candidates for this project include Hanwha Aerospace’s K-21, the ASCOD developed jointly by Austria and Spain, and Turkey’s Tulpar.

    >The K-21 armored vehicle is known for its operational experience and firepower. Notably, it demonstrated its firing capabilities during recent joint military exercises with the United States, moving in real maneuvers. Since its mass production started in 2009, over 460 units have been operated by the Army. The K21 boasts a high hit rate in combined training due to its automated fire control system.

    >It is equipped with a 40 mm cannon that, when loaded with Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabots (APFSDS), can penetrate steel plates 100 to 130 mm thick from distances over 1 km. Furthermore, it has a 750 horsepower engine, allowing it to move at up to 70 kph on flat terrain and 40 kph on rough terrain. It also features amphibious capabilities, using side pontoons and a frontal wave deflector to travel at 6 kph in water.

    >Hanwha Aerospace underwent mobility and firepower evaluations locally for three weeks from October last year and is reported to have received the highest score. Competing products that also utilize a 30 mm main gun have been judged inferior in firepower and are 30-40% cheaper, making the K-21 the anticipated choice.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    imagine stanning a clip fed gun in the current year

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is boforstard the most clueless poster on this board? Why is he such a glutton for punishment

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything over 25 is useless unless you want to shoot down flying targets. 25 is capable of killing any russian tank in close combat and efficient enough to shred enemy infantry.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed it’s the best general purpose IFV round but it severely lacks against drone targets. Man did the war in Ukraine display the usefulness of a reliable and accurate high capacity chain gun. It just doesn’t go out of style

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's true, but I don't think that adapting the main gun for shooting drones is the best idea. During combat you may need your gun for priority targets, not to defend yourself, also relying on the main gun to fight with drones means you need to manually engage drones, while there can be multiple targets from multiple directions. I think the best way is to adapt top-mounted turrets with machine guns to detect and engage incoming drones.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think EW and APS is fine for a fighting vehicle. For dedicated anti drone work something like the m-shorad is miles ahead of any IFV. It’s got EW, missiles, and a chain gun with airbursting munitions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            EW won't work when AI targeting progresses more, APS has limited charge capacity

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And by that time my IFVs company HQ will release their anti drone hunter killer drones powered by AI

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >25 is capable of killing any russian tank

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Doesn't know about Bradley vs T-90M video

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          .22LR has taken down grizzlies before. That doesn't mean you'd want a Ruger Mark III if you were about to be charged by one.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's so over boforsbros

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    40mm isn't 40 cal.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *