>designed to be an infantry fighting vehicle
>can't even transport a single infantry squad
What did they mean by this?
>designed to be an infantry fighting vehicle. >can't even transport a single infantry squad
>designed to be an infantry fighting vehicle
>can't even transport a single infantry squad
What did they mean by this?
FRICK I want to breed that asian twink.
Start the fricking war china I NEED to plap
tight oriental asses.
McBlack personator?
The Lynx will never sell, Achmed.
>you startled the germshill
It's "good enough" for what they need it for.
They have specialised variants for different roles.
>capacity: 6 passengers
The squad leader and his two favorites follow it in a limo
It holds 6 in the passenger compartment and a 7th passenger behind the driver. Still doesn't line up with a squad so they transport 3 squads across 4 BFVs. LOL.
why do they not simply put more seats in?
No room left. The rest of the space is taken up by basic necessities like engine, transmission, fuel tank.
Biggest issue is the manned turret. If they were to replace it with an RWS Turret like on the Stryker Dragoon, you could fit another couple dismounts in.
Then they wouldn't have space for the missiles, and then it wouldn't be able to blow up the enemy tanks before they can shoot at it.
The fourth squad is the BFV drivers and gunners.
There isn’t a 4th squad. The drivers and gunners don’t dismount and maneuver
They provide a overwatch and a base of fire using the vehicles my guy.
Yea no shit. You made it sound like they were a dismounted squad
Which is perfect. Reduces the chances of the whole squad behind wiped out by a single ATGM
>perfect
Apparently the US Army didn't think so because the (newer) M1126 Stryker ICV is sized specifically to hold a 9-man squad.
OMFV in the opening stages was allowing companies to propose any passenger number as long as a platoon of any number of vehicles could hold 30 soldiers. They've now settled on 6 passengers per vehicle, so they're probably some benefit over having a full squad per in terms of size and weight.
The open competition RFP, where:
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/12/omfv-army-wants-your-weird-ideas-for-bradley-replacement/
> Each OMFV is designed to have a two-person crew and carry six soldiers in the back. Under current plans, according to Coffman, there will be six OMFVs per platoon, to carry a minimum of 30 soldiers total, or five each, meaning another seat will be available to transport an additional soldier, such as a medic or interpreter, or other equipment.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/for-next-omfv-phase-new-competitors-could-join-contest-to-replace-bradley/
>The Army still plans for the OMFV to be able to operate autonomously or optionally manned, but is not mature yet in the autonomy domain, Coffman said. He noted that the teleoperating capability, in which a solider operates the vehicle from a remote location, is “very mature.”
>We're under heavy fire! WHY THE FRICK AREN'T WE MOVING?
>The driver left to take a shit and get a Red Bull, sir!
Which is a substantially different vehicle from an IFV. It provides far less firepower and protection. It is a compromise to get something with less weight that is easy to deploy but has better mobility and protection than dismounted infantry.
> Reduces the chances of the whole squad behind wiped out by a single ATGM
The Renault-FT is an infantry fighting vehicle.
the commandergunnerloaderadioperater is one cool dude
Does the Alternate Gunner take the Plt Commanders position when he dismounts?
That's a nice little platoon ya got there. Shame there's no RTO. Seriously, who handles the RTO role?
What the shit is the point of this? Each vehicle's dismounts should be a separate squad, what is this crap?
This is from battleorder.org for 2002 to present. Similar if not identical.
Lol there is no way you're going to be sitting behind the driver next to that turret with your gear. It's cramped in there without any people in the back, and you can forget about carrying TOW reloads and people simultaneously.
I do like the Bradley though, worked on the tow system and optics. Mechanics liked letting the cables for the turret get cut up by leaving them hanging out the door when it rotates.
I am worried the two guys from 1st squad in BFV 1 and the two guys from 3rd squad in BFV 4 might get bullied.
>crossload a platoon so they don't vaporize in a single vehicle?
This doesn't fit with armchair doctrine
neither can a humvee lol all military vehicles btfo
>t. too moronic to understand mechanized infantry platoons
>"mechanized" nowhere to be found in this thread
>I was talking about "mechanized" the whole time guyz
>"mechanized" infantry DOES NOT use humvees guyz
My moron in Christ mechanized troops use humvees.
That's motorized infantry. Mechanized infantry use IFVs and APCs. The Humvee is an armored car at best.
your post wreaks of someone with nothing but /k/ experience and quickly researched guesswork or Wikipedia article skimming when it comes to military.
reality is that in Iraq infantry and cav units used Humvees as well as Bradleys and apcs were the least used. At least you observantly noticed Humvees weak weak as shit compared to other vehicles, they were still used and for that reason a lot of soldiers got blown the frick up when they hit ieds. But they still used them.
Can? Yes. Do? No. No mechanized commander will settle for Humvees when they can take Bradleys.
>Do? No
I'm telling you, you're wrong. I know this. They did. I'm not sure if you're trying to play some "technicality" card here by saying right now at the moment they don't and since we're probably not heavily at war in any place might be right, but when we were in Iraq they DID use those. If you claim they didn't then you're just wrong and anybody who was there will know you're full of it.
Anyone here reading on some page saying "mechanized infantry does not use Humvees" is being mislead.
Made a ton of money for the manufacturers though, which is the main reason behind most weapons today.
Most IFVs carry under a squad. What really impresses me about the Bradley is it’s combat record. It’s excelled at armor vs armor and then later in iraq 2 in urban combat
This. Comparable western IFVs of the Cold War were trash compared to the Bradley. It’s still holding its own to this day I believe croatia ordered like 90 of them last year
Well it is the second most exported western IFV of all time
What is the first? Warrior?
kek no. It’s the CV-90. The warrior has never been exported
This is cap. The warrior was exported to Kuwait
The only warriors exported had to replace their awful turrets with American turrets. Nobody wanted a non stabilized clip fed gun when stabilized dual feed chain guns were already the norm.
https://www.military-today.com/apc/desert_warrior.htm
Oh damn. I hadn’t realized how bad their choice of gun was
>bad their choice of gun was
something to do with wanting a really tiny turret
>two three round clips can be loaded at the same time, then fired in a six round full auto burst.
heh
which is massively worse than the Bradleys system, somehow
>70AP/230 HE standard ready belt
>can fire 44 AP rounds or 194 HE rounds before hitting end of belt stop
That’s why I like 25mm for the IFV role. Perfect blend of firepower and ammo carried
maybe even the Flak 38 feed system is better
I've never understood the Brits' apparently aversion to belt ammunition
Don't even talk to warriortard
He makes IFV threads insulting them and praising them in order to samegay later the opposite rhetoric
He's not above arguing with himself to push narratives.
Warriortard thread confirmed, AGAIN. have a nice day you megahomosexual.
What the frick are you talking about? I checked and he’s right. The only warriors ever exported had their turrets replaced with LAV turrets
Him being right doesn't stop him being warriortard, anon.
Maybe it’s time to take a break from the internet. Not everyone is versed in your super specific internet drama. Talk IFVs or get the frick out
You can literally see your 1minute post cooldown timers where you talk to yourself while the poster count doesn't rise you dumb Black person, do you think people are stupid?.
Yea I’m seeing 20 posters. And it’s not uncommon for there to be a minute or two between posts, not all threads get a post every few seconds.
aren't you the moron who somehow mixed up two wikipedia pages claiming that a guy who has a wiki profile in Wales is actually in florida, even though that's clearly not the case?
Post timers a minute apart. This is the same poster
This guy obsessed with the warrior is constantly shitting up threads and accusing everyone of being a samegay
>This guy obsessed with the warrior is constantly shitting up threads and accusing everyone of being a samegay
He's been making these threads specifically to shit on Brits for over two years.
Guy has Asperger's or something fricky.
>He's been making these threads specifically to shit on Brits for over two years.
Who has? Also post the archives in question 2 years ago. Why are you even in a Bradley thread if you’re not here to talk about Bradley’s. The warrior wasn’t even mentioned before you came in here sperging out about it
Ctrl+f Warrior you lying spaz
Ok then prove it. Link the threads
It's the warriortard that outed himself as an autistic Wikipedia editor called "Loafiewa"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loafiewa
35.140.192.81
His location is Kent and says he's Welsh and autistic but when you search his IP it brings up Flordia and Bradley images on Google. The guy is a certified freak.
YOU FRICKING IDIOT
THAT IP ADDRESS ISNT THE SAME AS LOAFIEWA
THAT IP ADDRESS IS IN FLORIDA, NOT WALES
No, he got that wrong. The commander dismounts. Not the gunner.
>No, he got that wrong. The commander dismounts. Not the gunner.
I find that concept so strange.
But then i'm used to 8+3 IFV's where the commander and the squad leader are two separate persons
Here's the stranger part: You can fit eight men in the Bradley even if the commander doesn't dismount.
Look up "the hole". It's a space near the driver's position. Not fun, nor authorized to use, but does allow an eight man unit to fit in a Bradley - or nine assuming the commander hops out.
How much space is taken up by TOW-reloads?
A decent number. I can't find a good source nor a 3D interior view but that's the reason the M2 Bradley has bench seats and a limited number of TOWs while the M3 carries only a pair of extra seats for scouts and a shit load of extra TOWs
Definitely not for patrols. Nor would I wish anyone goes cross-country in that spot. In actual war time, it would be used as emergency space if vehicles were knocked out or to get extra guys to the front.
I don't browse NCD.
>A decent number. I can't find a good source nor a 3D interior view but that's the reason the M2 Bradley has bench seats and a limited number of TOWs while the M3 carries only a pair of extra seats for scouts and a shit load of extra TOWs
Yeah i always guessed that there would be quite a difference between the M2 and M3.
I'm a Cv90-guy myself, which carried an 8-man squad along with 2-4 Eryx/Jav in the missile compartment.
So i generally find the Brad layout quite interesting tbh
Don't get me wrong, it needed to be replaced, but the end of the Cold War means no one is replacing shit right now, only upgrading legacy equipment. No one has a fourth gen tank. Germany has the only real third gen IFV in production (Puma).
But at the time of its introduction the Bradley was a really heavy asset to bring to the table. I hope they can fix a lot of the problems with the M2A5/OMFV program (new turret with xm913 cannon, improved missile system - TOW is fine but the missile system itself has some weird quirks, might need to consider an automatic loader).
I'm not sure it could get much better. I also don't think anybody knew hos susceptible it was until the Iraq War.
Fixing one characteristic about it would only weaken another (i.e. give it wheels and make it faster means weaker tires and it can't pivot).
I'm not too familiar with the gunning system since I was a driver the whole time and not a gunner, but I didn't think there was too much wrong with the gunning system. I really don't like the idea of the TOW though. To have to sit there in one spot until you hit your target seems archaic to me (especially on a vehicle that prides itself on maneuvarability). Sure it's strong but damn. If the issue is that it can't take out a tank without TOW missile maybe they need to just have one or two tanks on patrol with infantry/cav units. Or replace TOWs with javelins since it's been proven javelins can destroy tanks.
> If the issue is that it can't take out a tank without TOW missile maybe they need to just have one or two tanks on patrol with infantry/cav units
They literally already do. Typical cav troop is 13 Bradleys and 9 Abrams.
TOW's can kill fine. The newest TOW is wireless, has a range of 4500 meters and is top-attack EFP.
The launcher system is the problem, not the TOW.
Not him, but when I was in Iraq the commander and the platoon sergeant both dismounted.
Not him but I've never seen or heard of "the hole" being used as an actual spot for a dismount. We used it to sleep since it was long and flat but for actual patrols I've never seen it being used.
USMC uses a doctrine like that, where the Amtrack crew is a separate unit (so that they can go back to the ship and haul another load of infantry). The Army's perspective, however, is that the Platoon Commander needs to have the best situational awareness of anybody (so that he can make good decisions), which means he needs to be in a turret (and if nobody is shooting at him, to have his head out). That pretty much forces him to be a track commander while mounted. Once he orders his men to dismount, maintaining the best situational awareness typically means that he has to dismount as well, so he can follow them along and see what they're seeing; after all, if the tracks could see the enemy just fine, there would be no need to dismount.
It's possible that this could change with remote vision and an unmanned turret; you could see a 2-man crew (driver/gunner) with the "track commander" being the senior dismount on board (who gets his situational awareness from his AR headset while mounted).
Yes, that's what I asked. The only BFV with a designated "Alternate Gunner" is the one with the Platoon Commander. Is the Alternate Gunners job to take the commanders seat if he dismounts, if not, why is he there? What does the Alternate Gunner do?
>** Platoon Leader sits in vehicle commander seat until dismount. Gunner replaces them on dismount.
According to one source. I would thus assume AG replaces G after G replaces C.
The wiki page you posted doesn’t have a florida IP. What are you even trying to say.
I don’t get it. The wiki you linked hasn’t edited the Bradley or warrior page. What is your obsession with florida
You're absolutely moronic if you think screenshots mean anything, you dumb tourist Black person
Off yourself already.
Wouldn't they get popped by IEDs?
yeah, but you might as well it "being popped by a direct artillery strike"
Everything gets popped by IEDs. Bradley’s have been popped by large IEDs and have eaten smaller IEDs. You will not be able to deal with this fact
This, the btr-4 claps t-72 cheeks in Ukraine I bet the brudly twould do even better
Why do stupid fricking children post about things they know nothing about
The Bradley carries 7 in the passenger compartment and the commander, who in the m2 is the infantry squad leader, DISMOUNTS with his squad. The commander role is not a full-time mounted job in the m2 unlike other variants.
So you have a reduced 8 man team, with a mechanized rifle platoon carrying 32 men. This shit is easily fricking searchable online.
>t. a literal moron whose idiotic claim are quickly disproven by this diagram
It holds 6 in the passenger compartment and a 7th passenger behind the driver. Still doesn't line up with a squad so they transport 3 squads across 4 BFVs. LOL.
that's not an official diagram you dunning kruger turbo Black person
BFV-2 (Wingman) — M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle
1× Bradley Commander (Plt Master Gunner)*, Staff Sergeant, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine
1× Gunner, Specialist, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine
1× Driver, Specialist, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine
1× Squad Leader (1), Staff Sergeant, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine
1× Team Leader (1A), Sergeant, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine
1× Automatic Rifleman (1A), Specialist, armed with 1 M249 Light Machine Gun
1× Grenadier (1A), Private First Class, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine and 1 M320A1 Grenade Launcher
1× Rifleman (1A)**, Private First Class, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine
1× Grenadier (1B), Private First Class, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine and 1 M320A1 Grenade Launcher
1× Rifleman (1B)**, Private First Class, armed with 1 M4A1 Carbine
Get some reading comprehension, it clearly says Infantry Fighting Vehicle. You use it to fight infantry, dummy.
The M2 Bradley didn't fit into infantry or armored doctrine at the time. We basically had to create a new platoon structure just to accomedate them.
Holy frick, more like the m2 CHADley
have a nice day samegayging warriortard.
Somebody post the parody video of defense procurement of what became the Bradley.
>parody video
God damn where is this from lmao. This looks way too high budget to just be a short film shitting on the army.
>God damn where is this from lmao.
> looks way too high budget to just be a short film shitting on the army.
Pentagon Wars, the movie.
bradley wars was written by an airforce colonel whose career was going down the shitter and wanted to make everyone's life hell. EVERYTHING in it is wrong - the Bradley's development came under budget at 8 billion instead of 14 billion, the Army wanted BRL live fire tests, etc . Take everything you see with a huge fricking pinch of salt.
>lazerpig
Plz go back to NCD even tho you are correct.
Have Bradleys ever even seen combat? Pls no bully I’m new to the world of military enthusiasm
yeah, you can look it up
Look up the battle of 73 Easting if you want an example of how big a swinging dick the Brad is.
You're assuming that the entire platoon is a dedicated dismount but that simply isn't the case. 12 men are needed from each platoon to man these Bradleys.
buy Lynx
God, I can't wait till September to see either Korean cucks lose their shit or German cucks lose theirs.
(When Australia chooses their next IFV)
Yeah this place should be interesting for a few days, thats for sure
German here, why is australia supposed to be important to me?
No one is buying the German IFV offerings and that hurts German pride. If Australia doesn’t choose it that will be a major embarrassment for German manufacturing.
Sounds like you've been fighting imaginary battles against strangers online, anon. I hope you're not one of those guys who spend hours on that every day, imagine all the cool shit you could do in the meantime.
Australia is a weird and unique place, I doubt anybody designed their vehicles around Australian requirements. They'll choose whatever fits them best without a meaningful impact on your life or mine.
>I doubt anybody designed their vehicles around Australian requirements
That's basically what Rheinmetall did though, for Land 400 Phase 3 for Australia.
There's a difference between designing a generic modular vehicle and using the modularity and designing a vehicle around some country's requirements, silly boy.
>silly boy
Pathetic comment.
It was both designed to be modular and actually exportable (unlike the Puma), and designed with Australia's requirements in mind, given it was the first competition the Lynx entered into.
Australians do testing second to none so it was important to Rheinmetall.
>for German manufacturing
German stuff is still top quality. The problem are their politics.
>germans only ever make a few prototypes
>claim paper stats is reality
>german army vehicles are all broken because they're old as shit and they don't have any money for spare parts
You seem upset and disingenuous, anon. What's your goal here?
this. Germany expected export sales to be much much higher than they actually are. Of all the morons to steal market share the South Koreans seem to be eating off of everyone else’s plate
The advantage of being near where the mines and components production are, really.
>Germany expected export sales to be much much higher than they actually are.
*Rheinmetall
And last time I checked they have limited production capabilities just like everybody else and plenty of potential buyers for a variety of products, including the lynx, out there.
I think you guys are way too hung up on anthropomorphizing nations based on anonymous interactions online with spergs who might not even be on the same continent.
You are downplaying the loss of market share rheinmentall expected. This doesn’t bode well for the new leapord.
Having a capacity of 20 main gun rounds is what will kill the new leopard.
In the ready rack.
Which is pretty good total capacity depends on the sub modules the particular contract demands, but having 20 in the ready rack isn't a bad thing.
WWII tanks often had ready racks with like 1-3 rounds if they had any at all, but nobody pretends that was their capacity.
>In the ready rack.
No where in any releases has it stated there are rounds outside of the ready rack. With the size of the rounds the mechanism to transfer from bull to turret would be huge. It’s 20 altogether and you won’t be able to provide a source otherwise. Embarrassing that you have to simp like this
>No where in any releases has it stated there are rounds outside of the ready rack
It literally does. Feel free to look it up or just check the last thread about it where a sperg (you?) insisted it only had 20 rounds, looked it up, posted a screenshot and embarrassed himself because that's quite literally what it says.
>the mechanism to transfer from bull to turret would be huge
turret's modular as well,how much space is in there and where it is will depend on the version, thinking that ammo is only in the hull seems ridiculous.
Go ahead, look up the document and post it again so we can all have another laugh at you.
>It literally does. Feel free to look it up
>no I can’t post proof just look it up!!!
no
>anon says it only has 20 rounds
>chad master race aryan Ubermensch corrects him
>anon tries to now turn the burden of proof for his initial statement around on his racial superior
Funny.
If that's your standard a simple "no" is enough to disprove your initial claim.
>corrects him
An unsubstantiated correction will always be ignored
Can you post the source I’m interested in finding out the answer. I’ve done some light googling and can only find the 20 figure
Look up the initial hand-out of the expo or datasheet, fren. To save time search for "ready" and you'll find ready rounds.
I guess so will your unsubstantiated claim then, eh?
>Look up the initial hand-out of the expo or datasheet, fren. To save time search for "ready" and you'll find ready rounds.
I just did. It says 20 with no mention of additional ammo stored in the vehicle. That’s not a lot
It says 20 ready rounds. The number of additional rounds depends on which modules are chosen
Weird thing for you to lie about, anon. Do you think your parents would be proud of you if they'd know what you're doing.
>It says 20 ready rounds. The number of additional rounds depends on which modules are chosen
I don’t believe you. Post a source of you want to be taken seriously
>inb4 Google it
It was revealed to me in a dream
Your samegayging aside, see
>Wikipedia
>external link
>second of the two
Then hit cntrl+f and look up "ready"
If you're interested in the truth, it's there, if you aren't and just here to shitpost because you're seething at Germans, why should anybody in this thread take you seriously?
We both know you're just seething though, which why you ask others to prove your claim wrong instead of proving yourself right.
Probably wht everybody treats you as a joke, anon. Just like irl.
anon, just post the proof or no one will believe you. There isn’t a shred of evidence that it Carrie’s more than 20 rounds and you’re doing a great job at showing you can’t produce material that proves it Carrie’s more than 20
Anon, you posted the same shit in every thread even just tangentially related to the tank, it never helps to prove you wrong about the 20 rounds being in the ready rack and you always keep going later.
Can you swear on the lives of your parents and your eternal soul that if somebody once again proves that the 20 rounds are for the ready rack, that you'll cease your seething and swear eternal loyalty to adolf Hitler, your rightful lord and master?
Everyone knows the rounds are in the ready rack. You need to post proof that the tank Carrie’s rounds outside the ready rack. I swear if you prove me wrong I’ll drop it instantly. I have the warrior and it’s design flaws to critique to gal back on.
I can’t find anything stating that more rounds are carried but the Germans wouldn’t design a tank with 20 rounds on tap.
I accept your concession
>Everyone knows the rounds are in the ready rack. You need to post proof that the tank Carrie’s rounds outside the ready rack.
You don't even know what a ready rack is, do you?
Nice samegayging, moron.
How fricking pathetic are you?
Ready rack means that the rounds are ready to fire. The fact that you haven’t been able to post a source detailing the ability to carry more rounds is telling
>Ready rack means that the rounds are ready to fire.
That would be literally all of them with a manual loader buy tanks still have ready racks with them and initially designed for them in particular, not because the others aren't "ready to fire" but because that's the most convenient/fastest reload option.
He actually lives in Kent, northern England according to the last wikipedia leak because the moron had his location turned on on his profile.
>Ready rack means that the rounds are ready to fire.
Never served.
Wrong I was a scout in an LAR battalion. The ready box would be full and all other rounds would have to be stored in ammo cans inside the vehicle. You can’t do that with 130mm ergo the tank only has 20 rounds
>Everyone knows the rounds are in the ready rack. You need to post proof that the tank Carrie’s rounds outside the ready rack
Lol
A ready rack is literally defined by being filled up from the rest of the stores ammo in less accessible parts of the tanks during a fire-pause because it's the fastest rack to use while reloading.
Anon, if there is no other store for ammo it can't be a ready rack.
>warriortard flaseflagging
I don't believe you, you embarrassed yourself and now you're trying to push the humiliation on him. You lost by your own admission, time to swear loyalty to big H.
>Lol
A ready rack is literally defined by being filled up from the rest of the stores ammo in less accessible parts of the tanks during a fire-pause because it's the fastest rack to use while reloading.
Do you have a source for this? Im not just going to take your word for it
Oh, I'm sorry, anon.
Were you trying to argue about shit you don't know motivated by things with no connection to the topic at hand?
Wow, shocking.
You were unable to prove that panther Carries more than 20 rounds of ammunition. That’s pretty bad for a tank
Ready rack.
Aside from that,you've done 0 to probe your own point, which makes me the victory by default.
The manufacturer is the one who is claiming 20+0. That’s why I said 20 because it was the only thing I could source. Since you can’t source your claim of more than 20 I accept your concession
Guys, the tank hasn't even finished development yet. There might not even be a set plan for how many rounds the tank will carry yet.
No one said it’s out of development. Currently it’s only known to carry 20 rounds and the cope campaign claiming its more has been shut down handily
Guys....
You're literally arguing nothing about nothing. The ready rack storage has to be defined since it's not good for storing anything else but the crew could use the empty spaces under the floor for more storage. The only reason this isn't mentioned is because the KF51 is still under development and the designers don't yet need to define what is ammo storage and what will be fuel or emergency supply storage.
My point is that the real answer doesn't yet exist and arguing over it without even a look at what spaces are available is just running in circles.
>The manufacturer is the one who is claiming 20+0.
That is a very israeli lie. You take information we don't have and pretend it agrees with you with no source. Pretty weak.
>anon doesn't know what a ready rack is
Why is warriortard such a weird little moron?
Post the definition of a ready rack that specifically states the implication of additional stowage or be disregarded
Post a source for literally any of your claims before you complain about anything posted by people more informed than you.
>he doesn't know what a ready-rack is
Lmaoing @ ur Lyf rn
>The manufacturer is the one who is claiming 20+0
Source?
>https://www.janes.com/amp/eurosatory-2022-rheinmetall-unveils-kf51-panther-tank-with-130-mm-gun/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
https://www.janes.com/amp/eurosatory-2022-rheinmetall-unveils-kf51-panther-tank-with-130-mm-gun/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/publicrelations/messen_symposien/eurosatory_bilder/2022/downloads/fahrzeuge/tracked_vehicles/B325e05.22_Panther_KF51.pdf
Doesn't say what you say it does at all.
Wew lad, ncie try.
It says
which is bad for your argument because it specifically calls out the total number of rounds in the Leo 2. Warriortard beat you
>compared with 15
15 is the point of comparison here, anon. Not the 27 the Leopard carries additionally since it literally says
> 20 ready rounds, compared with 15
>ready rounds
Guess how many ready rounds a Leopard has.
Why would they just leave out the hill storage of the new panther when they mentioned it for the leopard. You can’t explain that paragraph away
>Why would they just leave out the hill storage of the new panther when they mentioned it for the leopard. You can’t explain that paragraph away
Because it's written by a journalist who doesn't know what the hull storage is?
What a dumb question
>explain that paragraph away
Because it's written by a journalist who doesn't know what the hull storage is?
But he specifically stated the number of rounds carried in the leopards bull storage
Yes, so?
He still doesn't know since Rheinmetall hasn't released that information. Maybe he just didn't want morons like you to think the Leopard only has 15 rounds.
Either way, the reason for that particular piece of semantics really deosn't matter because the journalist doesn't know.
And why are you ignoring this post, tardlet?
Got nothing to say?
>know since Rheinmetall hasn't released that information.
Damn the people claiming it Carrie’s more than 20 are looking stupid
You do because you claim it only carries 20 based on something that explicitly only talks about the autoloader and not the ammo storage.
Depends, do you think the tank only carries 250 rounds of MG ammo?
No. Machine gun ammo can be thrown anywhere even strapped to the outside of the tank. 130mm ammo can not
But it says 250 ready rounds.
And in the auto loader section (not the ammo storage section) it says 20 ready rounds.
How come you expect them to list the hull-stored rounds in the autoloader section but not the ammo stored on the outside of the tank in the HMG section?
There isn’t a set limit of hull stored machine gun ammo or seperate magazine for hull stored machine gun ammo like a tank would traditionally have.
Actually, we saw in WW2 75mm rounds being shoved nearly anywhere they'd fit. The Panzer IV's loader was basically surrounded by ammo racks. The M4 Sherman was even worse since the turret was so high that 75mm shells could be stored upright under the turret basket.
That’s like comparing AA batteries to a Tesla battery.
It's about the way it is listed.
Why would they list hull stored rounds in the autoloader section when talking about ready rounds while the other 2 guns they mention only have their ready rounds and not total rounds listed as well?
Because the leopard has a dedicated main gun storage section in the tank. Since machine gun rounds don’t require that it isn’t listed
We're talking about the Rheinmetall document here, the Leopard has 0 connection to it.
Actually your asking why tank ammunition requires a safe dedicated place to store them and why machine gun rounds do not. See
Im glad to be able to clarify that for you
No I'm not at all.
We're talking about the fact that the official Rheinmetall document ONLY lists ready rounds for all guns and you trying to argue that if other rounds aren't listed there they don't exist.
Lots of israelites in florida, huh?
What a dumb attempt to reframe the conversation.
You claimed there are only 20 rounds with no soruce, the source you gave only talks about autoloader capacity and everything else about it supports that it only talks about readyrounds and not total rounds.
You lost you dweeb.
> only talks about autoloader capacity and everything else about it supports that it only talks about readyrounds and not total rounds.
Except that it compares the Leo 2 ready rounds + hull storage see
>Except that it compares the Leo 2 ready rounds + hull storage
But it doesn't.
That's from an article a random journalist wrote, the actual document, see here
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/publicrelations/messen_symposien/eurosatory_bilder/2022/downloads/fahrzeuge/tracked_vehicles/B325e05.22_Panther_KF51.pdf
Does not mention it at all.
So where are you seeing that it carries more than 20 rounds? Rheinmentall links only because that’s the standard you hold me to.
Came to me in a dream
It only talks about the autoloader capacity, not the hull storage or potential storage in the turret if not all submodules are picked just like it only talks about 250 ready rounds for the MG.
Pic related, pretty simple.
Also lmao at you seething so much you made a separate thread because you got BTFO'd
Because hull ammo stores are usually under the floor panels. Rheinmetall might also be hiding how many rounds the KF51 caries or might still be deciding how much of it should be allocated to that new HERO 120 loitering munition.
>2 12.7 mm coaxial machine gun • Mid-range support and defence • 250 ready rounds
>6 Autoloader • Up to 20 ready rounds • High firing rate • Unloading and re-stocking capability
>anon BTFO's himself
Lmao, look at the actual page you moron. According to your logic the entire tank only carries 250 rounds of machine gun ammo, also ti literally says
>• Unloading and re-stocking capability
>re-stocking capability
So much for "you can't restock the ready rack from hull ammo it's too big hurr durr"
Lmao, REACHING
See above, I win, you lose.
>inb4 NO IT TOTALLY ONLY HAS 250 ROUNDS OF MACHINE GUN AMMO!
Obviously the ready rack can be restocked, just not from rounds that it doesn’t carry internally.
Source?
And why did you ignore the fact that they used the exact same way to refer to the ready rounds of the coaxial machine gun?
Because you know it proves you wrong, anon.
You keep asking for a definition, let's go by Rheinmetall's definition in the very document you cited.
You either have to admit you're moronic enough to believe that 250 machine gun rounds are the total number of rounds the tank carries, or that you were wrong and that Rheinmetall, when speaking about ready-rounds, literally just means ready rounds.
>The FGS can fire kinetic energy, programmable airburst, and practice rounds. The autoloader in the rear of the turret carries 20 ready rounds, compared with 15 plus 27 in the magazine of a Leopard 2 tank.
The fact that they included the magazine count for the leopard 2 speaks volumes
>It says which is bad for your argument
Not a source of Rheinmetall, just a journie.
Meaningless.
>You need to post proof that the tank Carrie’s rounds outside the ready rack
>Florida/warriortard doesn't know what a ready-rack is
Lel
He STILL can’t post anything proving the tank can carry more than 20 rounds.
Ahem: Ready rack.
> the (usually very limited) set of shells that are stored near the gun to allow the loader to load the gun quicker than if he had to reach out to the hull for more ammunition. As such, they are very handy but, usually, the turret design won’t allow for high capacity ready racks and once depleted, the loading process becomes much slower.
>crayontard
It all makes sense now
>You can’t do that with 130mm
You can do it just fine with 120 and 155mm ammo.
Just not in cans, anon.
All you have to do is post the official documentation of the tank carrying more than 20 rounds. It’s been pretty fun watching you squirm. I’m sure when you reply to me you won’t include a source to help your case
I can’t find it anywhere. But it was actually revealed to me in a dream.
The fact that you both argued about this for so long is stupid.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4505.html
200 rounds for the main gun. Maybe the 2.0 version has less but it wouldn't be less than half that.
Thanks for posting this unrelated 30mm gun when we’re talking about a 130mm gun. 200 rounds should have been your first clue that you were hopelessly wrong
Then how'd we get from
to wherever the hell you are now?
Were talking about the panther tank that can only carry 20 rounds
Wait, you mean that Leopard 2 successor that's not going to be ready for 2 and 1/2 years? The designers probably haven't even decided how many rounds they're going to fit in it. Why argue over something so ambiguous?
>All you have to do is post the official documentation of the tank carrying more than 20 rounds
20 rounds ready rack means it does by definition. How many depends on the installed modules since there are a lot and they take up space.
It's not rocket surgery.
No it doesn’t. Ready rack just means rounds at the ready to fire. If they didn’t explicitly state the tank can carry more rounds and where then 20 is it
Scroll up a bit in this thread.
Embarrassing that you'd spend hours arguing about something while bot knowing what is.
>20 rounds ready rack means it does by definition
Can you link the definition please. Im not just going to believe you
>Everyone knows the rounds are in the ready rack.
What have you been shitting the thread up for then?
>You need to post proof that the tank Carrie’s rounds outside the ready rack
Oh lmao
>look up "ready" to find the number if rounds in the ready rack
>find number of rounds in the ready rack
>surprisedpikachu.png
You're a sharp one, aren't you?
>With the size of the rounds the mechanism to transfer from bull to turret would be huge
That mechanism is called "a crewmember", anon.
Same as done with other bustle-style autoloaders when they have to transfer rounds from hullrack to the autoloader. 130mm is bigger and a pain to move, but still doable (unless you think they just "appear" by themself in the autoloader
You're confusing RMW with Rheinmetall. Rheinmetall's market share for IFVs has increased.
I notice that a lot here, people either think Germany is a company or pretend it only has one.
In that case it would have Australian components or the option for them.
>Rheinmetall's market share for IFVs has increased.
Obviously because they haven’t sold any IFVs since the marder. Increasing sales from 0 doesn’t mean anything when you’re losing out on opportunity costs to South Korea and Sweden.
>Rheinmetall's market share in one of the fields it rarely ventured in has decreased!
>actually it increased
>BUT DON'T YOU SEE HOW MUCH MORE IT COULD HAVE INCREASED?
Lmao
Anon, Rheinmetall produces a lot of stuff, including nearly all cannons of western tanks and both cannons and barrels of many other guns, vehicles and artillery just to name one thing of many.
They made decided to get back into the IFV market and had some success with future success pending.
No idea why you believe Rheinmetall is entitled to deliver all IFVs to all western nations, but I don't think they could keep up with the production.
People here always pretend military procurement is this childish game of winner takes all, the market's huge, anon. It has many companies, that's always been the case.
Well yea they didn’t design a bunch of IFVs to only sell a small number of them. They released new products expecting them to sell and they’ve only secured a small amount of exports. When you design and manufacture a product for export and it doesn’t sell as well as you’d hoped because of competing products that’s called losing market share even if you sold some
First of all, billions in exports and maintenance over the years with future prospects of further sales are perfectly fine.
Second of all, that is not called "losing market share."
They had none and it rose, they gained market share. What you want to say is that they didn't fulfill your personal expectations, but why would that matter?
It's a pretty simple concept, don't make things up and over complicate it just because you misspoke before. Admitting you used the wrong term takes literally nothing away from any point you're trying to make, but insisting your usage of simple economical terminology was correct when it clearly wasn't let's you lose all credibility.
>Second of all, that is not called "losing market share."
They had none and it rose, they gained market share.
I’m not trying to be a dick anon but that’s wrong. When a company researches and designs a product they set certain expectations for sales. When another company eats up some of those prospective sales that’s is considered losing market share. It’s ok that you didn’t know but it’s not really an important point to argue in this thread
>When another company eats up some of those prospective sales that’s is considered losing market share.
Market share and expected market share are often used interchangeably due to the nature of modern management and publicly traded companies, but if you really want to be a dick about it there's a difference and in the context of this conversation it seems to matter.
wasn't there a movie about the shady crap that went on to get that into production and the govt to buy them. I think Frasier was in it
Yeah, Pentagon Wars is kind of a meme around here. It's a blatantly inaccurate retelling of that whole program based on a book written by the main character's real-life counterpart. It's too complicated a story to explain in detail in one post, but basically the guy kept demanding the Bradley be tested against threats it wasn't designed to defeat so he could "prove" it was inherently flawed; when he kept complaining because he didn't understand the test protocol, they kicked him off the program and he resigned his commission in disgrace. The Bradley had a few problems early on, but they were quickly and easily corrected and the vehicle went on to rack up more tank kills than the Abrams did.
How does the average normalgay even hear about this movie?
I actually like learning about weapons development and I never heard of it until I started lurking here.
The movie seems to be fairly obscure. I have never even heard of anyone watching the whole thing, just that one scene on the Bradley.
Stupid memes on ifunny or reddit.
>BMP-2: holds 7 passengers
>Bradley: holds 6 passenger
>CV-90: holds 7 passengers
>BMD-4: holds 5 passengers
>PUMA: holds 6 passengers
>ZBD-03: holds 5 passengers
>ZBD-04: holds 7 passengers
>>CV-90: holds 7 passengers
8
It varies by model. The original Strf9040 had 8 seats, other models have 6 or 7
yeah why the swedes dropped from 8 to 6/7 i have no idea
We ran with 8 guys on both the MkI and the MkIII without any issue, the only versions not having 8 seats are the command and recce versions
M2 Bradley tour:
The girl's not a troony, is she?
He talks about the passenger sitting behind the driver in the infantry version, but not the cavalry version.
M2A3 tour
That squad leaders display in the back is pretty cool. Looks like chadley is ready for another 50 years of service
SHE'S HOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Nah shes real
A challenge, mostly to Bradley/IFV critics: explain why the "3 squads in 4 vehicles" layout is a meaningful problem.
I..because it just is ok
the festive concertina wire wreathe always gets me.
>muh pentagon wars
why are fudds and summergays like this?
Can someone kindly explain the difference between IFVs, APCs, MBTs, and SPGs?
>IFVs,
Infantry fighting vehicle to let infantry fight next to tanks or independently as mechanized infantry.
>APCs,
Armored personnel carrier, not made to fight per se, kinda like a taxi. Look up "dragoons" it's the modern version of that.
>MBTs,
Main battle tank. It tanks in main battles.
(It's the classic tank you see in movies with the big gun and why armor)
>SPGs?
Self propelled gun.
It's a big gun that moves on its own and does the big cums all over enemy infantry.
Wikipedia > external link > second of the two
That ain't true.
You're thinking about prospective market share, which is a weird thing to be anal about here.
thanks
>APC: max infantry hauling capacity, minimum firepower
>IFV: average infantry capacity, average firepower
>MBT: no infantry capacity, max firepower
If APC and MBT had a baby, it's the IFV.
>SPG
Artillery, which is a separate topic.
IFV - Infantry Fighting Vehicle - An armored vehicle that directly supports Infantry with heavy firepower (and also transports them)
APC - Armored Personnel Carrier - A truck (or tracked vehicle) that has some armor to move infantry quickly around the battlefield. Very little armament (machinegun), it can support infantry with direct fire, but it is a bus to ride in.
MBT - Main Battle Tank - The modern tank.
SPG - Self-Propelled Gun - Usually an artillery piece on a vehicle, it could be a direct fire anti-tank gun, but usually it is an artillery piece or large mortar. This is in contrast to towed guns. A SPG doesn't have to be armored, but it could be.
AFV - Armored Fighting Vehicle - Catch-all that includes IFVs, APCs, MBTs, and armored SPGs etc. Definition could be different and might refer mostly to MBTs.
>AFV - Armored Fighting Vehicle - Catch-all that includes IFVs, APCs, MBTs, and armored SPGs etc. Definition could be different and might refer mostly to MBTs.
The reason it sounds so awkward if you spell it out is that it's a direct translation of Panzerkampfwagen from WWII.
Not quite sure why they didn't use indigenous terminology or come up with something catchy like brits did for Tanks or Germans for Panzer.
Wait, what about those APCs that mount mortars? Are they still APCs or are they now SPGs?
Neither, they're Mortar Carriers, which are technically *not* SPGs, but *are* considered artillery and can be used somewhat interchangeably with SPGs (mortars have shorter ranges, but higher rates of fire, and typically come down at steeper angles than artillery fire which has some benefits in certain situations). "SPM" has alas never really caught on as an acronym.
There’s a Russian source that says 20 in the loader and 10 more separately stored. It’s the only source that can be found so disregard that source of it pops up
I mean a squad is a significant amount of dudes and would make a vic a huge target if they could load that much. Also why not just use two? Simple as
this homosexual is pretending not to see this in the other thread. Maybe he'll see it in this one.
>https://rheinmetall.com/en/rheinmetall_ag/group/contact_form/contact.php
There's a link, click
>Divisions: Vehicle Systems – Weapon and Ammunition – Electronic Solutions.
CONTACT THEM AND ASK YOURSELF YOU VIRGIN
M2A2 ODS and M2A3 can carry 7 soldiers, same as BMP-2