Can we have a genuine thread about what's the best modern IFV with actual arguments? CV90, Redback, Lynx, ASCOD, Puma, which is it?
Can we have a genuine thread about what's the best modern IFV with actual arguments? CV90, Redback, Lynx, ASCOD, Puma, which is it?
eitan
100% israelites on top again
glad to see you guys have five working tracks for your entire mechanized force. Meanwhile..
Forty years later, and she's still going strong.
They say a country's military represents the values of its people, explains why US and UK tanks are getting so fat and overweight
Hunter (with suspensions). The army that uses them took out some suspensions to cut cost. Its less comfortable now and the gun is less accurate when on the move. But they counter that they use spike missiles against enemy targets instead of the gun.
>Can we have a genuine thread about what's the best modern IFV with actual arguments? CV90, Redback, Lynx, ASCOD, Puma, which is it?
Doubtfull
"Best" will be in relations to individual countries' needs, doctrine, what qualities they rate above others etc. One can always play top trumps with random stats, but that will not give the complete picture.
The Ajax sucks tho
Ajax isn't an IFV but yeah it sucks. If Bongs had balls, we'd have sued General Dynamics for it and just opted for the next possible domestic model with the CV-90 or the Lynx with as many shared components as possible with Boxer.
But thats British procurement in a nutshell.
The British can’t be trusted to develop an IFV. They’ve burned themselves before
To be fair, the Rarden fricked whatever it hit, unstabized or not
>Unlike the belt-fed or drum-fed systems on many vehicle weapons, Rarden is loaded manually with three-round clips. Each 3-round clip is loaded into the magazine as a unit, similar to the 4-round clips of the Bofors 40 mm gun. The magazine can hold two 3-round clips at a time.
lmao'ing at the brits, what a fricking joke
Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RARDEN#Design
>Gun is designed first and foremost to take aimed shots at light armoured targets
>Is powerful enough to wreck its intended targets with that single, aimed, shot
>Has its dismounts AT weapons for anything heavier it encounters
>"ZOMFG!!!!! LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL!"
>t. you
What exactly is it that you don't understand here? Nobody pretends that Warrior is some kind of universally effective anti-everything wunderwaffen - but it works pretty damn well for the role it was designed for, and it's being replaced now that that role is no longer relevant. Granted the replacement is a nightmare at the moment, but that's hardly something unique to the UK, and it doesn't say anything about the Warrior.
Scout SV isn't replacing the Warrior. Boxer is. There's no plans for a tracked IFV for Britain atm. The Scout SV recce APCs like Ares are the closest we are getting to a Warrior replacement but in terms of roles, those aren't really being used to replace the Warriors like the Boxers are.
That said, Scout SV is on its shitter atm. The gubmint told the Army to stop fricking caressing GDs balls and get them to either fix it or scrap the project and given GD's inability/unwillingess to actually resolve the vibration issue without more money thrown their way, I expect them to cancel it.
What they'll replace it with? I don't know. I'd like to say the CV-90 MkIV with the new scania engine but that means playing ball with BAE and they are currently not on good terms with UK procurement moguls after the last couple of projects running over budget.
That’s the problem. An IFV should be able to spray infantry with HE. That simply isn’t the case with the warrior
What? 30mm Rarden fires a HE round
Anon refers to the rate of fire I think.
Read the post I replied to. He said the gun was specifically designed to take careful shots at LAVs. the 3 round clip feeding system m doesn’t lend itself well to infantry shredding
Wasn't ever intended for that role. RARDEN was always designed as anti-AFV first and no real thought was given to anti-infantry. It was designed to be slapped on as many individual platforms, like the Fox, FV432 etc as possible to give British units as many IFV killing main guns as they could.
Its the kind of short sightedness that gets British procurement in alot of trouble and inability for products to be sold abroad without extensive changes. It's also why we are stuck with a dead AFV industry and have to fondle the balls of other nations to get our replacements now.
>It's also why we are stuck with a dead AFV industry and have to fondle the balls of other nations to get our replacements now.
In another reality that leads to good friendships and jolly cooperation.
But we live in gay Hellword so all we get is angry brits on /k/ who hate everybodym
The original Warrior not having a fully electric turret was kind of embarrassing. It's literally 1940 tech
In what way? Never absolutely failed to do its job. Sure it's worse than its competitors but it was never as bad as the BMP in terms of casualties and it was sufficiently mobile and protected. It was like all British equipment, worse on paper but somehow did better in comparison to non-US equivalents in terms of deployment.
I'll admit its worse on paper stats but like Challenger, it has been used effectively since its inception.
Wasn't an IFV but recon vehicles haven't gone away. I just wish the British army/government would just accept ASCODs failure for Scout SV and just look elsewhere. Im sure CV-90 with the 1000HP engine can fulfill the same goals without deafening its crews. Just a shame we are stuck on the CTAS train.
Warrior is more survivable than the Bradley.
I’m almost impressed
It survives by hardly participating in combat operations. That’s not really a flex
>hardly participating
>Most deployed Western IFV by a long way when not including the US.
Nah its just more survivable than the Bradley that Is vulnerable to RPGs and small IEDs.
Did the Bradley even deploy to Afganistan?
Yea the warrior has seen very little combat. Minor roles in desert storm and then 2 other small deployments. I understand your a fan but it just doesn’t have the record you think it does.
Wew goal post shifting, what happened to hardly participating? It had a major role in Desert storm, Iraq 2003 and in Afganistan (did the Brad even go to that one). Its been deployed well over 1000 times with only 5 lost to date.
It's vulnerable as frick it's not very impressive at all when it comes to protection, their has been multiple scandals about its survivability and how badly protected it is. Over 170 lost in its career.
No one is pitting the warrior against the Bradley here just poiting out its weaknesses.
Cannon+Tow=good Survivability+Slow+Bad for dismounts=Bad
>It had a major role in Desert storm, Iraq 2003 and in Afganistan
It had a minor role. Nothing compared to the Bradley
At what point did anyone compare the warrior and bradleys roles in the Gulf? What kind of mental gymnastics are you playing lol
Did the Bradley even go to Afganistan or was it deemed too much at risk to basic stuff like an RPG, anti personal mine a bridge crossing?
>At what point did anyone compare the warrior and bradleys roles in the Gulf?
That’s the whole premise of this reply chain. You are eternally butthurt about the poor reputation of the warrior and you shit up every IFV thread trying to polish that turd.
>inb4 the Bradley who has seen extensive combat has more units lost.
>Being so mad she makes things up
Calm down dear the start of the reply chain was that the Warrior is much much more survivable than the Bradley which it is. You just sperged out as usual just like all the other threads you make and then proceed to shamelessly reply to yourself.
FYI most of the Bradley's lost were in Iraq 2003, to IEDs and RPGs basic b***h stuff that the fat slow sack of shit couldn't handle. Over 150 killed in an identical theatre that the warrior was deployed in at the same time and only 3 being destroyed, granted a smaller number of warrior was deployed than the Bradley.
Picrel Bradley after being hit with a house brick.
Protection seems pretty great for how much combat they’ve seen. Crew survivability was pretty high. The fact that the warrior hasn’t seen much action isn’t relevant to the Bradley’s superb performance in combat
>Vulnerable to RPG
>150 Bradley's destroyed in 8 years
>700 damaged
>2003 Iraq war
You realise the warrior and bradley had an identical role in that war? No big tow desert battles, just urban fighting you know that right?
Shit the Bradley got fricked in Iraq only 3 warriors were destroyed in that war no wonder they didn't sent that piece of shit to afganistan its dangerous!
>You realise the warrior and bradley had an identical role in that war
Delusional. What were there 1 warrior for every 200 Bradley’s
You don't even know how many went to OIF you moron.
Only 150 and at least 12 were set in fixed positions defending military instillations (not a bad role for the warrior IMO)
The warrior wasn’t really used in the second iraq war, especially for urban fighting due to the non-stabilized main gun that fires from manually loaded 3 round clips. The Bradley saw a lot of heavy urban combat in the second iraq war. Did you really not know this?
Wrong again, 400 Bradley's attended OIF 2003-2011. 350 Warriors attended 2003-2011. 150 Bradley's were destroyed and only 3 Warriors.
Combat was equal both involved in taking cities and supporting infantry, the 30mm of the Warrior allows a much better HE effect than the anemic 25mm of the Bradley even though the COAX was used 90% of the time anyway
*150 warrior
Source any of this
Just google it theirs so many images of the death trap on fire and smashed to pieces by basic small arms.
One was even killed by a basic b***h BMP1 cannon, even though the Bradley should have seen it and destroyed it way before the BMP had chance to engage.
I saw that too, amazing how that was possible. 150 losses to 450 deployed is an alarming amount.
You’re talking to yourself. And please cite the 450 deployed number
It says it right here moron
You've been talking to yourself the entire thread warriortard. Nice try with the static base defence cope lol nothing will bring back the 150 warriors wasted by cheap small arms. Pretty tragic and not impressive. Meanwhile the warriors tanking hits left and right.
>Warriortard trying to pretend he's not himself and trying to make it sound like "warriortard" is pro warrior.
Lol the guy is literally insane.
Find new material human bot.
>infantry vehicle used in heavy urban combat is destroyed more than a small number of infantry fighting vehicles used as static base defense
I’m not impressed
I have googled it. I can’t find anything to back up
>Combat was equal both involved in taking cities and supporting infantry, the 30mm of the Warrior allows a much better HE effect than the anemic 25mm of the Bradley even though the COAX was used 90% of the time anyway
>trust me bro
>Combat was equal both involved in taking cities and supporting infantry, the 30mm of the Warrior allows a much better HE effect than the anemic 25mm of the Bradley even though the COAX was used 90% of the time anyway
Where did you hear about this?
How could the 30mm be better for urban fighting when the gun can’t fire on the move and can only have 12 rounds at the ready at one time? Your making shit up now
>VULNERABLE TO RPG
hahahahahahaha what a crock of shit is this a BMP or somthing
>Did the Bradley even go to Afganistan or was it deemed too much at risk to basic stuff like an RPG, anti personal mine a bridge crossing?
Why would the US take tracked vehicles to a country like afghanistan? I understand why the British did because they didn’t have any MRAP equivalents.
>Did the Bradley even go to Afganistan or was it deemed too much at risk to basic stuff like an RPG, anti personal mine a bridge crossing?
They didn’t take tracked vehicles because afghanistan is loose sand and mountains. The hmmv and LAV-25 both deployed to afghanistan while being significantly less armored than the Bradley.
>They didn’t take tracked vehicles because afghanistan is loose sand and mountains
The US operates CV-90?
Take a look at the flag
I know moron. The post you replied to was about the US not bringing tracks to afghanistan. Posting non us vehicles doesn’t negate that fact
>They didn’t take tracked vehicles because afghanistan is loose sand and mountains
How come other countries took tracked vehicles to afghanistan then?
>How come other countries took tracked vehicles to afghanistan then?
Wanting to participate and not having MRAP type vehicles to send. Afghanistan wasn’t a very high intensity conflict
I think the US was afraid of more Bradley related scandals and embarresing losses ontop of the already most destroyed Western IFV title.
It's also fat tall and vulnerable
>I think
Cope and seeth you disgusting euro trasb
>I think
nah
>Loose sand
What the frick do you thing the Gulf war was you moronic moron
Flat open deserts with hard packed sand. Do you not understand the difference between iraqi sand and afghan sand, not to mention the mountains
A lot of improved roads in Kuwait
>Its been deployed well over 1000 times with only 5 lost to date.
being deployed =/= seeing heavy combat. It was deployed in Bosnia and saw almost no combat. The Bradley on the other hand has a reputation of being an armored vehicle killer.
This is cap. Some of the heaviest ifv fighting happened in Bosnia. The warrior excelled
Replying to yourself is pretty cringe bro
Take meds
Wow a disable vehicle. Impressive!
Bradley with ERA isn’t vulnerable to standard RPG-7s and has eaten small IEDs. It has hit some big IEDs resulting in catastrophic kills but that is just part of being the most widely deployed western IFV. Warrior looks cool though I’ll give you that and the gun is hard hitting
Some 2200 Bradley vehicles were deployed during Operation Desert Storm, and only three were lost to enemy fire.
>stabilizing technology available since the mid 20th century is for poofters
Based.
>Ajax isn't an IFV but yeah it sucks
wtf is it then?
Multiple things. But none of them are MIVs, which is what Britain calls IFVs. They are primarily replacing Scimitars and the likes with recce units.
From Wikipedia:
245 turreted 'Ajax' variants
198 Reconnaissance and Strike (Ajax)
23 Joint Fire Control (Ajax)
24 Ground Based Surveillance (Ajax)
256 Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variants
93 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) (Ares)
112 Command and Control (Athena)[10]
34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch (Ares)
51 Engineer Reconnaissance (Argus)
88 Engineering variants based on the PMRS
38 Recovery vehicles (Atlas)
50 Repair vehicles (Apollo)
It's a wholesale replacement of CVR(T). Ajax will replace Scimitars. Ares will replace Spartan etc.
Ajax is a replacement for CVRT, so the gun variant is really a light tank/reconnaissance vehicle
We can't sue GDLS because the MoD is to blame for constantly changing the specs leading to the travesty that is Ajax.
How is the Ajax so bad? The ASCOD is a successful design
We can't because this is a Florida/warriortard thread in disguise.
Mine is the best
It's the Namer
Here's IFV Namer.
have fun building 8 per year
>heavier than most mbt's
that's not a problem for Israel, though. They don't exactly need to be driving them around the world or putting them on ships. The biggest issue is production - at the current rates they'll be relying on m113s in hot zones for decades
Rafael could easily uparmor M113 were it desired but Israel doesn't need APC to become AFV.
The better to crush Palestinian houses, my dear.
The perfect IFV
Useless in advanced combat situations
This piece of shit has the weight of a large mbt but the firepower and armor less than most modern ifvs and has the mobility of a horse drawn carriage, sitting ducks against anything other than ragheads with aks
>and armor less than most modern ifvs
Still waiting to see if any antitank missiles can get past Trophy, let alone Trophy+Iron Fist
namer namer namer
MUSHROOM MUSHROOM
Holy kek, didn't see that one coming.
SPIIIIIIIKE, OH SPIKE, OOOOOH SPIKE OH IT'S A SPIKE
israeli turrets stick out more than a israeliteess' nose, are they just not afraid of an rpg-7 sailing into the gap? they were certainly scared enough to put balls on their tank turrets
you'd think an army that is so focused on counter insurgency developing a new vehicle focused on protection would cover all their weakpoints, but then again merkeva still has massive ammunition racks in the hull
The Namer turrets are unmanned and separated from the crew by an armor bulkhead. They're quite literally designed to just toss turrets if penetrated. The turret blows off and is disconnected from the hull sparing troops from any damage and the vehicle simply retreats and gets a new turret within a few days. Israel can only produce Namers and Merkavas at a double digit annual rate but they can produce turrets, armaments and electronics rapidly so this was all factored in.
Sounds like a really good idea for COIN and nothing else. I realize Israel hasn't fought any of her neighbors' militaries since the '80s, but that's still a hell of a gamble, tbh.
It’s the Bradley due to sheer numbers. 25mm cannon is great for clearing infantry and killing LAVs. TOW kills everything else. Any cannon above 30mm doesn’t carry enough ammo for the IFV role. Yes the CV90-40 doesn’t carry enough ammo for an IFV. You are now aware the CV90 only has a 40mm cannon because Sweden makes the 40mm bofors and had a ton of extra barrels laying around.
I dunno, I think the US army disagrees
That’s an interesting case due to programmable ammunition that can kill small drones and low flying aircraft. I can see it supplementing the 25mm but not outright replacing it.
no point in that - the Army wants and has bought laser and jammer based systems for drones.
Good thing you can get it in 30 and 35mm as well.
30 I’ll give you but 35mm is huge
STRF9040 has a 40mm gun though, and the XM913 is 50mm
autocannon rounds are slowly increasing in diameter - from 20mm in the early 70s to 50mm being considered practical today.
105 autocannons WHEN
Yeah 35mm is an absolute chonker.
The 40mm in the swedish version stemmed in part from what
said, but also the need to engage helicopters and infantry in dense forrests as per the original design specifications for the CV. Everone else went with the 30 or 35mm
>25mm cannon is great for killing LAVs
My brother in christ, I love the bushmaster, I work on the bushmaster, but it's outdated, most contemporary IFVs today are easily frontally immune to even M919 at standard engagement distances.
Best IFV imo would be a CV90Mk4 with the Bushmaster IV, CROWs, and Spike LRs. Little bit of everything for accomplishing anything. Noones bought that configuration yet to my knowledge, but the platform is capable of having all of those together, so I see no reason it couldn't
M919 is a lot better than you think. Not saying 25mm isn't on its way out, but an est 100mm of pen at close range is more than enough for the BTR and sufficient for the BMP family
>M919 is a lot better than you think
It's closer to 90mm vertical at the muzzle, and it's only 36mm at 60 degrees at 1km. I'm not saying it's incapable of popping BTRs and BMPs, but even lightweight add on armor packages for most western IFVs make them immune to it.
With CT ammunition becoming more common we could see larger caliber cannons become more practical for sustained fire support. With the development of the 50mm bushmaster I'd figure it would need to use CT, because otherwise the gigantic 50mm conventional rounds would cube out the hull at like 300 total instead of the ~900 rounds carried by a 25mm M2.
Telescoping design has no advantage in vilumtric effeciency. Even worse it makes rounds fat that is bad for ammo feed system capacity.
Not to mention the wear on the barrel. That issue hasn’t been solved
With recent IFV developments (I'm looking at the Puma and Lynx as an example), as well as logistical and weapon improvements over the years, it has become viable for IFVs to carry as much ammo with a 30mm weapon system as it is with a 25mm system.
Plus, with the arms race seeing IFVs being turned into essentially light tanks, a increase in the main weapon is now becoming a requirement.
>it has become viable for IFVs to carry as much ammo with a 30mm weapon system
based moron.
ascod ulan my fellow Black personinos
ASCOD
Merkava IV
Its the Puma.
It's only downside is nobody can afford it, not even germany who builds it.
Germany already ordered a 2nd batch
Why u don't tell that they failed their combat test
Show me a picture of more than 20 Pumas tigether on exercise. Germany doesn't train armor in large numbers because they don't have much of it, unless your looking at paper stats of course.
hello obsessed bong
I know the Ajax failure makes you seethe but you don't need to cope in every IFV due to it
*IFV thread
>gets upset instead of providing an image
How about 20 marders then?
Don't waste your time, they cannot refute your first point so they will cope as always.
>2nd batch Puma is in fact coming
>HURR SHOW ME MORE THAN 20 PUMAS IN ONE PHOTO
>meanwhile Ajax doesn't exist and Warrior is worse than the Puma's predecessor
>Doesn't show Pumas
>Doesn't shoe Marders
>wHaTaBoUt aJaX!
Just show 20 Pumas/marders on exercise you fricking loser what's wrong don't you have any, How about 10 you raging homosexual
Ever heard of dispersion?
Yeh sure, I've also heard you train with brooms
Show me 15 Bradley’s operating together
That would be too easy
>2 Pumas
Lmao case in point. Germany has frick all armor ready for combat and is unable to prepare for combined warfare.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/gulf-war-tank-will-never-be-replaced-199843
why are you seething so hard just because I mentioned a 2nd batch Pumas has been ordered? What kind of autist does one have to be to get so mad about this? Do we see 20+ IFVs in Ukraine used in one spot by either Russia or Ukraine? No, because there is no fricking point. Are you still seething and denying Germany has 350 Pumas with more coming because stroking your micropenis to pictures of 20+ Warrior IFVs in one spot is all the joy you have in your life? Yes, sadly.
>2 vehicles
>20 warrior
Sorry only have pictures of 50 in an armoured group bro. Germany practices like this right? But lol no stabiliser am I rite?
ok, very nice vintage collection, but what does that have to do with me saying a 2nd batch of Pumas has been ordered?
It's a numbers thing, you claiming muh 2nd batch when you can't even maintain and train with more than 10 marders nevermind Pumas.
I gave you a chance to show +10 of both types in training either by themselves or combined and you failed, but no because you didn't try but because Germany is an epic cluster frick and has pretty much 0 available vehicles and hasn't done a single large training exercise since East Germany was a thing. Pathetic.
you can google Wettin Sword 2022 or various exercises in Lithuania were both Puma and Marder have been exercising with more than 10 units, I'm not gonna look that up to continue this autistic little fight with you. What happened is I posted the fact that another batch of Pumas has been ordered and that got you assblasted for some reason.
Yeh I just looked at that, not Impressive at all "75 tracked vehicles" hand full of marder 2 Puma a few Leo2 and lots of engineering vehicles and other shitty vics. Not what I was asking for at all. Also abit of a self own because the British had to part build the bridge for you.
Germans contribution to Lithuania says it all really. 6 Leopards and 25 Marders, shocking.
Ok, Germany is still getting a 2nd batch of Pumas, which is all I really said before you started your daily spergout.
>anon's first interaction with the butthurt brit
You'll get used to him, he haunts all these threads ever since armatard gave him a psychotic break over the ajax.
I miss seeing the two morons disingenuously argue with each other.
>Butthurt Brit
>Says the man who makes his 1600'th+ (Not a joke) IFV/warrior thread on /k/ because he thinks brits are arrogant.
Kek
I'm not OP and if I would be I'd have made it about the ajax or your standard infantry rifle, I never looked much into it but always thought the warrior is at least okay.
Maybe you should be less obsessed with anonymous internet drama and find a fulfilling hobby.
Who made a Warrior thread? You are a fricking spastic. It is a legitimate IFV thread that the typical Germany/Butthurtbonggay turned into a shit flinging contest again because both are too autistically moronic to understand what they are talking about and just grasp at straws.
homosexuals like you are literally why Britbros get shit on /k/, especially after Armatard got butthurt over British equipment actually proving effective against slavic garbage and decided to attack the absolute shitstack that has been Ajax, which caused Britsperg to rupture his own colon on rage and paint those of us that have been here for over a decade in the same shit covered brush as himself.
>Germany/Butthurtbonggay turned into a shit flinging contest again because both are too autistically moronic to understand what they are talking about and just grasp at straws
That's literally the same person.
Post group shots!
Don't be like this
guy...
>tanks standing around doing nothing is impressive for brits
Their gun laws make a lot more sense now.
How could america come out of such an eternal slave race? Did only limowristed scum stay behind?
The serfs stayed in the UK to toil in victorian hellscapes.
>Did only limowristed scum stay behind?
unironically yes. This is the hidden danger of colonization, you take your boldest and most dynamic people and exile them.
>Not a single motorpool shot of german armored vehicles
Lol
You're literally arguing with a homosexual who can't even own a proper bag that basically lives in a dirty as frick workshop all day.
He is a homosexual who makes these threads day in day out for years on end.
have a nice day subhuman Black person polack.
Cope and seethe kraut.
god damn that thing is sexy
>Germany who builds it
>Vaporware like the T14 Armata
Germany has so many different armored vehicles because they literally only build a few prototypes and then use the prototype in service.
BMPT Terminator
What is the difference between an IFV and a light tank?
Tanks don't typically carry troops into battle. Light tanks aren't necessarily armed to support infantry, but IFVs always are.
>Can we have a genuine thread about what's the best modern IFV with actual arguments
Ajax.
>arguments
Built for slaaneshi cultists.
>Built for slaaneshi cultists.
Chaos Black folk need not apply
Bradley
Tracked boxer with remote turret
Looks like shit
This thing is absolute garbage. It only careies 15 rounds, has less protection than a fricking CV90 and weighs more than an MBT.
45t
>weighs more than a mbt
what shit country do you live in with <45t mbts?
Romania I suppose
who else uses T-55?
Angola?
>Tracked boxer
That's a thing?
Looks like a Maus
What about that Frecca energy with that Oerlikon KBA and Spike energy? Gun may be a bit weak ( but it is fast) however it carries 8 and has Spikes. Thoughts?
Love seeing 25mm on an IFV.
Especially a 25mm with a 600rpm burst fire mode. Helicopters be shaking rn
For those who are on the spectrum and happen to obsessed with IFVs, how would you go about grading and categorizing their traits/features? What metric, etc?
I love the IFV concept, aesthetic, and somewhat modular designs some of them have.
> how would you go about grading and categorizing their traits/features?
In no particular order my interpretation is
>mobility
>armor
>excellent optics to make up for the lack of situational awareness in an armored vehicle (dragoon strikers)
>carry at least 6 scouts and their gear (packs, auxiliary weapons, water and food)
>medium caliber autocannon
It should be a dual feed chaingun able to defeat most armored vehicles with APFSDS and HE for infantry and light structures.
>ATGM
in no particular order: weight, max speed, armament, survivability, troop capacity, cross-country performance
>mobility
>firepower
>survivability
>give the army a combined arms team that is SECOND TO NONE
DUH
DUH
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH
I miss the Scimitar...
The one IFV that's actually seen combat in an integrated battlefield
Why is it so sexy?
so did the warrior ya bloody yank
granted its "integration" resulted in getting schwacked by Abrams tanks and A-10s
I know this will make me sound like a gay but sometimes you just have to tell the truth.
The best IFV is the one that meets the requirements of your military. There I said it, and it’s the absolute truth.
No IFV is good enough. They can be killed at any range by everything from light infantry to extreme range cruise missiles. They generally only provide protection up to low-end auto canon fire. Their own firepower is typically only supplementary to their own dismounts. Their value amounts to "giving mechanized rifle troops protection and firepower that’s better than nothing". They have serious weight, size and cost constraints. So the "best" one is that which meets all of its operator’s desired tradeoffs. So, the best IFV is probably the Bradley.
I think a problem with IFVs and APCs is by their nature they are going to have high attrition rates, which makes people think they're shitty when it's just the nature of their domain. It's a bit like comparing a gun that has to be dragged through the mud and jungle vs a range queen used in a city and that's it.
Oh boy, do i have a shitbox for you, just imagine 1000 of pic related at mere $0,5 mil a pop.
I like these, because I like IFVs and I like MT-LBs.
big bullet = swiss cheese machine
its like a roofed all chain ww2 half track
>So, the best IFV is probably the Bradley.
For the US? Yeah probably.
The Norwegians found it to be dogshit during trials based on their specific needs for mobility and profile, dismounts etc so they went with the CV90. Its really down to what type of battlefield needs you have
The US hasn't won a modern sustained war on their own that wasn't against Saddam.
And your dump has right
Here is some Serbian modernisation of their IFVs, just prototipe but the idea is to refurbish 220.
rofl
When do the forced into sorry starstreak memes begin?
So, whats about the land 400.
Are the aussies finally ready to pick an IFV??
Where have you been? They picked the red back
you sure about that?
https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/07/13/new-australian-army-ifv-to-face-cuts-but-reaper-may-be-back-on-the-table/
Do you have a link?
>The budget for the LAND 400 Phase 3 acquisition was initially set at $10-15 billion in 2015 but later increased to $18-27 billion.
That´s a lot of money, the total cost for the Puma was 7 billion USD in 2019.
The Germans already had a fleet of Marder 2s, the aussies only have M113AS4s for mech inf and just gave 20 of them to UKR
Decision will be made in September
>more IFVs on trials than we've seen of Kraut vics so far
Why the frick is this one Brit so obsessed with number of German vehicles in one picture?
The number of exports of the CV90 is cool if you consider that it was literally designed for war in northern Sweden.
I really really REALLY like that image. May I save it?
Sure thing buddy
The fact that the STRV2000 was not built is a travesty unrivaled in recent military history
>140mm main gun that can double as artillery
>40mm coaxial
>smart munitions
>ammo stored in a removable cartridge that ejects if hit
>power to weight ratio superior to any other mbt
>armor deemed superior to that of the Abrams or Challenger
>mobility superior to Leopard
>cancelled because the Soviet Union died and Sweden thought that meant a Russian invasion of European nations was no impossible
How can they determine all of those if only a mock-up was built?
It all sounds like MBT-70: innovative on paper, questionable in practice
What is the best Cold War era IFV?
Best was Bradley. 2nd was either the French AMX-10 or the marder
>no Terminator
Nibbas
Piranha V
Bradly, why is this even a real question you dumb homosexual
Hey I've got some more for you, I think it will upset you to know that no one died and none of those warriors were destroyed. A massive testament to thr survivability of the Warrior.
The fact that they haven’t seen much combat isn’t a testament to their survivability. How many people have been killed inside of Bradley’s? 10-20 is a testament to the surmvaibily of the Bradley.
Sorry for your asshurt anon, the Bradleys armor is just not impressive at all.
Sure it is. Crew survivability is pretty great. The best part is that it has a fully electric turret, dual feed chain gun, modern optics, and a stabilized cannon that allows it to fire accurately on the move. Another great part about the venerable brad is the dual TOW missile launcher.
>Has all that
>Eats a BMP round
>Explodes
A 73mm cannon can penetrate any IFV. Why are you so reluctant to discuss the flaws with the warriors armament
There’s nothing wrong with the warriors main gun. It was designed to wreck Soviet armored vehicles from a prepared fighting position not to be a base of fire for an infantry squad
That’s kind of the problem everyone has with the warrior. The Bradley can kill any armored vehicle on the battlefield with its tow and most lightly armored with it cannon, while also being able to throw out huge amounts of 25mm in support of the infantry
>Kind of a problem everyone has
>everyone
Just you and your inferiority complex, stick a Milan on and you have that capability, not that you would need it because that's what Challengers and dismounts without Javelins/Nlaw are for
>w…we don’t even need the capabilities that Bradley has that’s allowed it chew through so much enemy armor.
Pathetic
>Help me I've been bullied by a bmp 1 and an rpg7 for the 150th time!
Bradley doesn't need ATGM vs BMP. It has 25mm chaingun for that (much better than peace of shit Warrior gun). TOW is for tanks.
>The gunner of one Bradley was killed when his vehicle was hit by Iraqi fire, possibly from an Iraqi BMP-1
looks like it needs more armour to me
No amount of armor on an ifv will protect against a 73mm shell
That would be pretty cool if the job of an IFV was to destroy enemy armored vehicles. The Bradley does that better anyway and that’s verified in combat
No one wanted the Bradley though.
The only western IFV that’s exported more IFVs than the Bradley is the CV-90. 521 Bradleys have been exported. How many warriors have been exported?
kek the only nation willing to buy the warrior wouldn’t do it unless they changed the turret to a Bradley turret.
That's pretty much your perfect ifv right there. Were any prototypes made?
kek it’s far from perfect. Kuwait bought 250 of them in the 90s and that’s it. The only warrior export
Wait, so the No one has ever bought the original warrior? The turret is that bad?
The Brits cheaped out on it because they had the RARDEN lying around and it was good enough for the scenario of sitting in West Germany popping waves of Russian light vehicles and also found good enough for fricking over farmers in the desert like most anything else. I'd been assuming they would /intended to mate a better turret on top of the good hull if there was ever a serious need and looking at the export prototypes it was possible and a few people had the same idea
>faster and tougher than Bradley with same armament
What am I missing? Sounds baller
Maintenance hog, worse situational awareness. Air more goes into an armoires vehicle than main gun and armor. Spare parts availability also plays a huge factor. Not many warriors were built so the production lines are small and fragile. You can’t put windows on armored vehicles so the optics suite has to be top notch if you want situational awareness.
>maintenance hog
I remember watching matsimus on YouTube and he served in a warrior unit. He said maintenance was a lot but could be managed easily with good leadership
>There’s nothing wrong with the warriors main gun.
Clips feed.
No vertical stabilization.
Manual only vertical elevation.
Its peace of shit.
There's no question that a 73mm HEAT warhead can kill an IFV, if that same round hit a Warrior without any ERA it would also be magically transformed into a heap of scrap metal.
That’s the thing, the warrior was never hit with one, despite being involved in exactly equal amounts of combat as the Bradley
>despite being involved in exactly equal amounts of combat as the Bradley
How did you determine that?
Why can’t you just buy a quality bag? Don’t you care about your tools
I saw that thread it was hilarious when he outed himself and immediately back tracked then stopped making warrior and Javelin threads for a few weeks.
Warrior uses composite armour with its protection levels still classified, which means it uses the Dorchester armour from Challenger seethe 2.
More Bradleys have been produced than all other western IFVs combined. Love this little box like you wouldn’t believe
>Biggest Western nation by population has biggest number of IFVs
Did you know water is also wet?
Try and explain that concept to this guy
the warrior was an export failure. Not a single unit exported. The only exports for the program saw the removal of the warriors turret completely
What is this cope 254 desert warriors were sold, its normal for a customer to change specification of vehicles.
Only 430ish Bradley's were ever sold, most likely bribed into Saudi and Yemen. This is probably because of how weak its armor package is and how many have been lost in combat.
>520 unchanged Bradley’s exported vs 250 warriors (with Bradley turrets) exported
LMAO
It's based on a Delco turret (lav25 turret)
Which is unironically the least armoured part of the vehicle with the frontal arc withstanding 25mm, somthing you wouldn't want to risk with the death trap bradley...
521 units exported. Another 250 turrets exported to Kuwait to replace the flawed warrior turrets
Based. I hadn’t realized the croatia deal was finalized. Guess I’m 8 months late
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/wireStory/croatia-announces-deal-buy-us-bradley-fighting-vehicles-82484601
It isn't, he photoshopped it lmao
I just clicked on his link
and it took me right to Wikipedia and listed croatia as a future operator. Are you ok? Plus
all of the press releases from January 2022 reporting on the finalized deal
This is infact based. I was pleasantly surprised when the US approved the sale.
Kek why would you photoshop "FUTURE" over "POTENTIAL" you autistic sperg LOL
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle
O B S E S S E D
Yikes. Imagine not knowing the deal was finalized
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
Bro your actually editing the Wiki article as I'm replying you sad c**t lmao what's wrong with you
Imagine being too stupid to realize that you’re comparing 2 different Wikipedia pages. Imagine not knowing you can see all revisions made and nothing to back up your statement. First it was photoshop and now it’s editing. You know this boy isn’t taking his meds
Because your a same gay editing wiki pages and call yourself Loafie lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Loafiewa&action=view
What are you claiming has been edited? Post proof from the publicly available edit page
Nothing. I see now that I was comparing 2 different pages and the original one I looked at was out of date
jesus i didnt know the bradley did that bad in exports. Imagane being outdone in exports by fricking sweden
outdone by 300 IFVs?
>Sweden: 549 vehicles
I agree but learn to count.
You can't export to yourself smoothbrain
And how many thousand bradleys does the US operate, though? Sure it doesn't count as export, but the Bradley orders just for the US would outnumber all EU NATO countries even if they sold off their IFVs today and bought CV90s
>And how many thousand bradleys does the US operate, though?
i was judging it based on its export sucess, like i said the US army is massive so whatever they adopt is gonna be built in insane numbers by the metric of almost anyone else
Ok fair, you can't count, but I can't read. Looks like over 630 exported.
That’s still 100 more exports than the Bradley
Correct
Yea that doesn’t seem like much. I thought there were over 1000 CV90s exported
800-900 according to that list
Ahh ok thanks. Pretty impressive the CV90 is a well thought out vehicle. Seems to be popular with swedens neighbors. What kind of combat record does it have
It’s seen some light combat in afghanistan. That’s about it I think
its 1096 cv90's exported in total vs 521 bradleys at least from what i can see from
obviously US has produced more fror themselfes
It’s the second most exported western IFV so it didn’t do that bad.
You posted the Wikipedia to the Bradley fighting vehicle. He posted the Wikipedia to the M2 Bradley. The M2 one seems to be more recently updated and includes the news of the deal with croatia.
Look again he's removed FUTURE operators now so it's just a blank space lmao he's having an autism attack
I just looked. Again you are comparing two different Wikipedia pages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
https://sys.PrepHole.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBradley_Fighting_Vehicle
Are you denying the documented sale of Bradley’s to Croatia? What is the basis of your denial? Is it really just hurt feelings?
Someone has thoroughly broken this bong.
LAV VI when I'm the gunner.
Steady on Warriortard let's not keep this up anymore.
>Edits the Bradley wiki shows profile and IP
>Wiki profile is linked to this IP 35.140.192.81
>Geolocated to yep you guessed it, FL la Florida
>Google search that IP, 5 pictures of a Bradley (Warriortard is obsessed with the Bradley see other IFV thread)
>Wiki Profile page lists him as a Welsh person with Autism
>Gets caught out in the other threads with the Florida card and shit tool bag
So WARRIORTARD has finally outed himself as a Wiki editing weeb that fled Wales to Florida and he also has autism which explains alot.
Can you admit it now bro, the evidence is all there.
What was edited? Are you referring to how you were confused because you were looking at 2 different Wikipedia pages?
>incoherent screeching
Just admit it lol your worse than armatard
Just post the Wikipedia edits you keep talking about. We’re all curious now
>Can you admit it now bro, the evidence is all there.
The evidence is my incoherent ramblings but written in green! No I wont post the publicly available editing information because I just won’t ok!
Post the proof then digits misser
Kek good job anon, saved
samegay
Anon I was mocking his lack of proof not agreeing with him
you're such a dumb frick it hurts. I'm not welsh, how the frick did you come to that conclusion?
I'm not even "warriortard"
How does the marder stack up?
*mogs your favourite IFV*
OK hans. Warriors have served in iraq, Bosnia, and afghanistan. Cope harder and edit Wikipedia more moron baggay
Is the door armored with NERA?
Wait what? How does the warrior rapidly switch between AP and HE if it doesn’t have dual feed? Does someone actually have to fish the clips out of the loader and replace them with the desired round?
Best amphibious IFV coming through.
Not even close
Probably the puma, then the red back, then lynx, then Bradley, then btr-3
Lynx, Puma, Redback, Bradley > rest
>Whole bunch of IFVs that are generally similar
>Batman's dad could beat up Superman's dad!
What's your point OP? What's next, which .30cal service rifle is the best?
Who cares
It doesn't really matter. AFVtism is generally silly. ATGW and trained crews matter far more and you cannot buy skill and practice.
Given UK doctrine for its IFVs versus American doctrine for its IFVs I cannot complain about the Bradleys OR the Warriors. Warriors had Chobham side armor while Bradleys only had ERA-backed aluminum. Both performed within expectations given their relative protection levels.
Are IFVs just reinventing pre WWII tanks?
>lightly armored
>have 30-50mm guns
>all the dakka
>meant for infantry support
Yes to all except, they are more heavily armoured than ever before